9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Controversy over the inclusion of the value of 80 tolas of gold ornaments in wealth-tax assessments. Analysis: The wealth-tax appeals revolved around the inclusion of the value of 80 tolas of gold ornaments in the assessments of the assessee for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) included the value of these ornaments in the assessments, considering the assessee as the owner, despite the claim that the ornaments were not her property. The assessee contended that she was holding the ornaments in custody to be passed on to the wives of her sons, as per a statement and affidavit submitted. The WTO rejected these submissions, leading to an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). Before the AAC, the assessee reiterated that she was not the owner of the gold ornaments and provided details regarding the transfer of these ornaments from Smt. Mandevi to Smt. Rajeshwari, and eventually to her. However, the AAC noted discrepancies between the affidavit of Smt. Rajeshwari and the statement of the assessee regarding who the ornaments were intended for, leading to the rejection of the assessee's claim. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts presented by both parties, found that the authorities below were unjustified in rejecting the assessee's claim. The Tribunal accepted the affidavit of Smt. Rajeshwari, which indicated that the ornaments were not meant for the assessee's ownership but were to be held for the benefit of her sons. The discrepancy in the statement regarding whether the ornaments were for the sons or their wives was deemed immaterial, as it was seen as a plausible elaboration. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not the owner of the ornaments and directed their exclusion from the assessments, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
|
