9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han the returned value. Further in the case of CWT vs. Raghunath Singh Thakur [ 2008 (4) TMI 152 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ] held that where assessee s valuation figures are supported by valuation report of Registered Valuer and WTO has not made a reference to valuation cell, then the assessee s figures are required to be accepted. Insofar as the items of jewellery covered by the FIR, the assessee is bound by the valuation secured by the Hon ble High Court and the assessee cannot seek to reopen the same. Insofar as the items of jewellery not covered by FIR, however, the Revenue is expected to take a consistent stand in respect of all the items thereof and in view of the settled position of law, the assessing officer is directed to consider the revised valuation secured by police or by the assessee, as the case may be, and submitted by the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is, accordingly, allowed in part. - Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon ble Vice President And Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate, Ms Deepashree Rao, CA, Shri Vibhu Gupta, CA For the Respondent : Dr. V.K. Chadha, Sr. DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Year 2011-12, the revised claim was made by filing the revised return. 4. The claim of the assessee is apparently in respect of the jewellery of two descriptions, namely, the jewellery studded with fake/inferior quality stones which were sold to the assessee claiming to be of highquality Emeralds and Ruby in respect of which the assessee lodged an FIR with police and the jewellery which were sold at an inflated cost in respect of which no FIR could be lodged by the assessee. 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, refused to consider the reduced value of the jewellery for the purpose of determining the net wealth of the assessee and passed the assessment orders. When the assessee preferred appeal, Ld. CIT(A) by way of impugned order dated 27/3/2018 held that the value in respect of the items of jewellery covered by the FIRs had not in the pending proceedings before the criminal courts and, therefore, the value pleaded by the assessee cannot be considered as market value; whereas the items of jewellery not covered by the FIRs, Ld. CIT(A) took into consideration the items in respect of which the value is more than the returned value but refused to consider the value of items in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, but the matter is still pending before the Hon ble High Court inasmuch as the jeweller failed repeatedly to comply with the orders of the Hon ble High Court. 9. According to the Ld. AR all these facts cumulatively lend credence to the submissions of the assessee that the market value of the jewellery was lower than the value originally declared in the wealth tax return and, therefore, the authorities below to have considered the value of the jewellery as per the valuation report dated 29/01/2013. He referred to the provisions of section 16A of the Act in support of his argument that it is mandatory for the wealth tax officer to make a reference to the valuation officer in case there is a conflict of opinion with regard to the value of a to the value of a particular set and mere allegation that the assessee failed to produce valuation report in support of jewellery declared earlier, cannot lead to an adverse inference against the assessee. 10. He also made a reference to CBDT circular No. 96, dated 25/11/1972 to submit that the learned Assessing Officer, before disagreeing with the valuation of any asset, is duty bound to refer the same to the valuation officer. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision Petition No. 177/2018 and batch passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court that Mr Govind Narain Johari expressed his readiness and willingness to refund the money of the assessee against the return of jewellery mentioned in the FIRs.Recording such a fact, the Hon ble High Court directed the return of property and the jeweller to pay the entire amount of 15.89 crores to the assessee. By paying ₹ 15.89 crores the assessee acquired certain jewellery and on return of the same she is getting back the same amount. There is no depreciation in the value of the property received by the assessee on the return. The order of the Hon ble High Court clearly ensures the assessee to get whatever the value she has paid for the jewellery and, therefore, is not open for the assessee now to say that the value of the jewellery covered by the FIR is something less than what she had paid for them. 15. It is, therefore, clear that insofar as the items covered by the FIRs and also by the order of the Hon ble High Court, it is not possible for us to take a different view that such items of jewellery are less in worth than what was stated in the returns. We find every force in the submissions made o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimation of the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. If it would be so, we do not find any logic in the Ld. CIT(A) directing the ld. Assessing Officer to take the higher value as per the valuation report by ignoring the items the revised the value of which is less than the returned value. Further in the case of CWT vs. Raghunath Singh Thakur (2008) 304 ITR 268 (HP), the Hon ble High Court held that where assessee s valuation figures are supported by valuation report of Registered Valuer and WTO has not made a reference to valuation cell, then the assessee s figures are required to be accepted. 20. In the circumstances, for the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that, insofar as the items of jewellery covered by the FIR, the assessee is bound by the valuation secured by the Hon ble High Court and the assessee cannot seek to reopen the same. Insofar as the items of jewellery not covered by FIR, however, the Revenue is expected to take a consistent stand in respect of all the items thereof and in view of the settled position of law, the assessing officer is directed to consider the revised valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
