9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee belonged to a rich family and she must have received some ornaments in her marriage and that it was difficult for her to prove the source of acquisition after 35 years of her marriage when some of her relations making gift or presentations to her were dead, held that she could normally have possessed jewelleries worth Rs. 25,000. The balance of Rs. 40,000 was treated as her acquisition from unexplained sources, and confirmed the addition to that extent. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal. It was submitted that the lady became assessable to wealth-tax for the first time in the assessment year 1964-65 and had, therefore, disclosed the value of jewelleries in her return of wealth which on estimate was shown at Rs. 65,000 in the assessment year 1964-65 and was revalued at Rs. 96,750 in the assessment year 1969-70. It was further submitted that the AAC had committed an error in deducting Rs. 17,106 being the value of the sold out articles in 1953 and 1954 from the sum of Rs. 20,000, being the value of the jewelleries in the possession of the assessee at 1935 price level. The value of sold out jewelleries at 1935 price level was said to be Rs. 6,000 only. A detail of the jewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresents income of the assessee ? " The assessee was married in the year 1935 and the value of the ornaments received as gifts or presents was valued at Rs. 65,000 in the year 1964-65. It would not be unjustified to conclude that the value of the same was not more than Rs. 15,000 or Rs. 16,000 in the year 1935. The ornaments consisted of (1) four bangles with diamonds, (2) one nose ring with diamonds, (3) one nose pin with diamond, (4) one diamond forehead ornament (borla), (5) one necklace with diamonds, (6) two raiphul with pearl, (7) four bangles (chhad) with pearl, (8) four bangles with pearl, (9) four kangan with pearl, (10) two imitation gold kanthi with locket, (11) eight gold meena bangles and (12) four pieces of guineas. All these were valued at Rs. 65,000. Item No. 2 and item No. 4 were said to have been received from the grandfather of the assessee, late Rai Bahadur Ramjidas Bajoria, a well known businessman of Calcutta and founder of S. V. S. Marwari Hospital, Calcutta. Item No. 8, item No. 9 and item No. 1 were said to have been received from the father of the assessee, late Babu Baijnath Bajoria, member of the Upper House (Central). Item No. 5, item No. 6 and item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see belonged to an undivided Hindu family and it could not be said to be unnatural for a father-in-law to mention in black and white what particular ornaments had been given to his daughter-in- law at the time of her marriage for avoiding future disputes, if any. It was never hinted that this certificate was got up and the signature of Ram Narayan Goenka was a forgery. The gentleman breathed his last on 11th January, 1954. In case of any doubt the signature of the deceased could be compared with the admitted signatures which could be found in old documents. Anyway, there is absolutely no justification to discard this piece of evidence which was issued as far back as on 5th December, 1938. Next, as to the certificate dated 20th January, 1969, issued by Padma Debi Goenka, a doubt was cast as to the power of her memory to recollect what ornaments had been given to the assessee by her. It should be noted that apart from four guineas as one nath, eight gold meena bangles and two imitation gold kanthi with locket had been presented by the mother-in-law. She did not mention the weight or the value of each item of the ornaments. It is quite natural for a mother-in-law to recollect what o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed the whole amount. It was held that, applying the true principles as to interference with findings of fact of the Tribunal, the court was under the circumstances entitled to consider whether the finding that Rs. 30,000 represented undisclosed profits was correct and that the view of the Tribunal that it was impossible for the appellants to have had 61 notes on 18th January and the rejection of 30 such notes was based on pure surmise and, as the appellants had furnished a reasonable explanation for possession of 61 notes, there was no justification for having accepted their explanation part and discarded it in relation to the sum of Rs. 30,000, and no part of the sum of Rs. 61,000 could, in the circumstances of the case, have been assessed as undisclosed profits. Having regard to the observation of the Supreme Court it is argued that, as the assessee had furnished reasonable explanation for possession of ornaments valued at Rs. 65,000 there was no justification for the assessing authorities in accepting her explanation in part and including the sum of Rs. 40,000 as acquisition from unexplained sources. Such findings are said to be based on pure surmise. The same principle was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
