9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and disclosed the same, in his wealth-tax returns. During the assessment year 1957-58, however, Ramaswami Naidu retracted and declared in his wealth-tax returns the value of such jewels at Rs.40,000, and claimed that jewels worth Rs. 25,000 were given away an November 24, 1954 to one Baby Ammal who projected a claim for maintenance as against the estate of Guruswami Naidu. It is not clear as to what happened to the rest of the jewels. In fact, the record does not contain as to how the depletion arose resulting in the disclosure of jewels worth Rs. 40,000 as against jewels worth one lakh in the previous assessment years. The revenue rejected the returns, since there was no satisfactory proof of disposal of the jewels between the previous assessment year and the assessment year 1957-58, and in the absence of such satisfactory proof of disposal of the unaccounted jewels, the deceased's wealth-tax assessments were completed on the basis that his wealth, inter alia, comprised of jewels worth one lakh of rupees. The result is that in the assessment year 1957-58 the value of the jewels was determined as one lakh and this has become final on appeal before the Tribunal After the death of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an indicia to probabilise the argument that the jewels were removed by the deceased from India and sold there. He would also urge that the accountable person has sworn to the affidavit of assets and has stated on oath that only jewels worth Rs. 3,350 were inventoried by her and she could not find any other jewels on the date of death of the deceased. It is urged that once the accountable person bases her claim on such material, the burden shifts on to the revenue to show that the story of depletion of the jewels cannot be accepted. Mr. Jayaraman, counsel for the revenue, contends that the deceased should be deemed to have died leaving jewels worth one lakh and stated that it was for the assessee to rebut a reasonable presumption arising from the Tribunal's order in wealth-tax proceedings that the deceased indeed was possessed of jewellery worth a lakh on the date of his death, since an year and a half before the date of death, his wealth was determined by a proper statutory Tribunal which included the jewellery worth one lakh. He would in any event say that the finding of the Tribunal on the material placed before it was reasonable and as the fact so found is conclusive, the answer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se a question of law : see Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In the instant case the accountable person was initially under a handicap because the deceased himself did not demur against the order of the Tribunal in wealth-tax proceedings, when it evaluated his jewellery at one lakh as on March 31, 1938. The contention is that the deceased committed an unwitting mistake. The explanation is so unconvincing that to accept it would mean to depart from the usual norm of evidence, that the material tendered should be proved and substantiated. Excepting the ipsi dixit of the accountable person, nothing more is available to bring home the argument. If a person alleges that a mistake has crept in any legal proceeding, he should bring home to the Tribunal such a circumstance and demonstrate that a mistake is an unwitting one. Again, it is pure speculation to urge without any basis, that the deceased might have removed a great part of the jewellery to the United Kingdom and sold them there. During the relevant period, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was in force and there were statutory barriers, before any such attempt can fruition. The alleged removal of the jewel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of a deceased. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and that of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are almost in pari materia and the courts are bound to interpret the two sections in the same way. If, therefore, the principles governing the above two sections are similar and the sections have to be thus interpreted, a reference under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act to the High Court can only be on a point of law and the High Court in its advisory jurisdiction ought not to and shall not interfere on pure findings of fact given by the Tribunal. As to how the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, whose functions are very similar to that of the Tribunal constituted under the Estate Duty Act, should act has been clearly set out by the Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sail v. Commissioner of Income-tax : " The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact-finding Tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it the court will not interfere. It is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
