9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect before the department on March 31, 1950. The deceased, in his wealth-tax proceedings, during the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, owned the jewels of such value 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 res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the jewels either in India or in the United Kingdom ought to have been accepted ; that the discovery of large bank credits in the United Kingdom left by the deceased is 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 wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause, in the nature of things, no rigid standard can be set or an inelastic formula laid for such proof. No doubt, throwing of proof on wrong shoulders, would certainly raise 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced by the Tribunal to decide an issue under the Estate Duty Act, particularly while reckoning the value of the estate that has passed or deemed to have passed on the death 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du. Can it be said that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal is perverse or unreasonable or was given without " due care " ? While aswering the reference, this court is bound by the findings of fact given by the Tribunal, provided they are backed up by relevant material on record. The Tribunal relied on the various circumstances already referred to and also the wealth tax proceedings of the deceased, and on an overall consideration of those facts, and having regard to the conduct of the deceased and the accountable person, who did not make any independent survey or inventory of the jewels through an independent agency, and after weighing the pros and cons of the case found, in the manner they did. To us, the finding by the sole factfinding authority is not unreasonable and much less perverse. They have taken due and proper care to weigh the material before them. As the scope of section 64 of the Estate Duty Act is similar to that under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, we are bound to accept the finding of fact that Rs. 1,00,000 worth of jewellery, passed on the death of Ramaswami Naidu. The question is answered against the accountable person with costs. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
