9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch at residence on 31st Dec., 1974 and the bank lockers standing in the name of the wife and daughter. Certain jewelleries, found therein, were valued as follows: Jewelleries there found in the residence 1,44,085 Jewelleries found from locker in the Wife's name 80,445 Jewelleries found from locker in the name of married daughter. 46,670 . 2,71,200 3. Apart from these, there were also valuable securities like National Savings Certificates and unit trust certificates valued at 16,000. We may mention that these jewelleries were valued at the ruling prices of the accounting year concerned by an approved valuer. 4. The ITO after giving an opportunity to the assessee passed a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. These are old jewels and declared by her wealth-tax returns, as for instance in the wealth tax return of 1971-72 filed on 30th June, 1971 showing the then value of Rs. 36,200. This would account for the jewelleries in here locker and partly found in residence. The present value would be Rs. 1,02,150. This is supported by the Voluntary Disclosure made on 31st Dec., 1975 in respect of the undisclosed increase in value of jewelleries. (2) The residence was shared by his married son A. He has also jewelleris and part of what was found belongs to him. He has declared his jewelleries in his wealth tax returns. No doubt under s. 132(11) A's jewellery has been excepted but the amount of Rs. 15,000 excepted is the value of 1971. The same jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customary practice referred to by the Commr. effectively shows that no deduction should be allowed on this ground. (5). In any case, adequate consideration has already been given for these explanations. 10. Out of the total value of jewellery found on search amounting to Rs. 2,71,200, the value of jewellery belonging to the wife is 80,445. This was found in a locker in the bank. We will first take up the plea that the jewelleries of wife declared at 36,290 is now worth Rs. 1,02,150 and is part of the total value of Rs. 2,71,200. Those is no dispute that in wealth tax return of 1971-72, she had shown jewelleries of Rs. 36,920. The valuation 2,71,200 is as on 31st Oct., 1974 i.e. towards Diwali 2030. Has the value of gold risen up f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. possession of jewellery worth Rs. 36,290 in 2026 S.Y. has been established. That is all for the present necessary. So, Rs. 80,445 would be deducted from Rs. 2,71,200. 12. The next consider the jewelleries which were accepted under s. 135(11) order to belong to the son. But the diction allowed was only Rs. 15,000. Now having accepted that the sons jewelleries form part of Rs. 2,71,200, the Department should ascertain what part of this value belongs to the son and exclude that amount. It is not sufficient is the value of these jewelleries as in 1971-72 is excluded. Now, as we pointed out in the earlier paras dealing with the jewellery of the wife, the value of gold accounts for three-fold increase. On this ground the claim that 40,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the jewellery belonging to wife was worth 1,02,150 and son 63,750. If these values are adopted in preference to Rs. 80,445 and 40,600 respectively no further addition need be made. 16. We are unable to accept that he assessee has nothing to explain. It is true that jewelleries found are of such nature that they are generally worn by ladies. But that does not mean that the assessee has nothing to explain. Some of the jewelleries like rings and chains could be worn by men and women. Apart from that, we find that all other family members have accepted owning jewelleries except the assessee. The assessee's son has declared jewelleries in his wealth-tax return. So also his daughter and his wife. It is probable in a family like the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce there figures have been taken from her own statements under the Voluntary disclosure Scheme, we must accept them as correct. We cannot say that part from jewelleries worth 1,02,150 she must have had some other jewelleries. 19. We are also unable to accept the submission that 63,750 should be taken as the value the jewelleries belonging to the son. A complete valuation certificate has been of furnished by the assessee in respect of the jewelleries belonging to his son as at S.Y. 2030. This valuation is for 40,640 only. And this is the figure included in 2,71,200. So this only 40,640 can be excluded therefrom. 20. Our analysis therefore shows that about 20,000 remains unexplained. We are of opinion that this addition should be sustai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
