9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sure of Income Wealth Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'VDS'). The net wealth declared under this voluntary disclosure was as follows: "Statement of value of asset/WT returns not filed. Assessment year Amount of net wealth Rs. 1. 1958-59 3,46,750 2. 1959-60 3,46,750 3. 1960-61 3,46,750 4. 1961-62 3,94,750 5. 1962-63 3,94,750 6. 1963-64 3,94,750 7. 1964-65 3,74,750 8. 1965-66 4,84,600 9. 1966-67 4,04,600 10. 1967-68 2,35,000 11. 1968-69 2,35,000 12. 1969-70 2,35,000 13. 1970-71 3,85,000 14. 1971-72 3,85,000 15. 1972-73 3,85,000 16. 1973-74 4,95,000 17. 1974-75 4,95,000 18. 1975-76 4,95,000 Note: The necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was not open to the Wealth-tax Officer to make an assessment on a higher figure and the value of the various properties at a higher figure than what was disclosed in the returns was wrongly taken by the Wealth-tax Officer. For the other assessment years 1958-59 to 1971-72, the matter came up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, 'N' Range, Bombay, who also held that the Wealth-tax Officer ought to have accepted the net wealth as declared by the assessee under the net wealth as declared by the assessee under the VDS and the assessment made on a higher amount by the Wealth-tax Officer were not justified. 3. The revenue is aggrieved and has, therefore, come up in the present appeals before us for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1974-75. The assessee had also come up in cross objections which are limited only to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75 with the grievance that even on merits, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the values of the properties as declared in the declaration under the VDS were justified and the values estimated by the Wealth-tax Officer were highly excessive and arbitrary. Here it will necessary to point out that grieva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment years 1958-to 1972 and the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75 wrongly held that once to the Wealth-tax officer to make an assessment on a higher amount and consequently the net wealth as disclosed under the VDS should be accepted. 5. On the other hand, the assessee's learned counsel, Sri R. C. Desai submitted to us that a declaration under the VDS was declared under the VDS was distinct from the assessment proceeding initiated by the filing of the return. He, therefore, submitted that once a declaration was made under the VDS which was accepted by the Commissioner, the Wealth-tax Officer had no power to go behind the declaration and adopt the value of any property at a figure higher than what was declared under the VDS. Reference in this connection was made by him to the Board's Circular No. 180, dated 15-10-1975 explaining the provision of the VDS. According to Sri Desai, the declarations under the VDS were under the bona fide belief that the assessee by making a declaration will put an end to all its troubles and will buy peace and the very purpose of the VDS will be set at naug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue is in appeal before us. Under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Wealth Ordinance, 1975 (later on replaced by the Voluntary Disclosure of Income wealth Act, 1976), where the assessee made a declaration and paid the tax chargeable thereon and/or invested the amount in securities as provided under the VDS, the Commissioner had no alternative but to accept the disclosure and the assessee was entitled to the immunity in respect of the amount declared under the VDS as provided under the said Act. This immunity has been mentioned in the scheme itself and provides that notwithstanding anything contained under the Act, the net wealth or as the case may be the value so declared in the declaration under the VDS shall not be taken into account for the purpose of any proceeding relating to imposition of penalty on the person making the declaration or for the purposes of prosecution, under the Wealth-tax Act. This clearly implies that it is open to the wealth-tax authorities to investigate and find out whether the declaration made by the assessee under the VDS is correct and complete. The Wealth-tax Officer can make as assessment on an amount higher than what was declared in the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declaration under the VDS and in the wealth-tax returns were justified and the values adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer based on the report of the valuation Officer were highly excessive and unjustified. There was no occasion to consider this alternative contention either by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) because they had accepted the main contention that the net wealth as shown in the declaration under the VDS and the wealth-tax returns should be accepted. In the interest of justice, therefore, we direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) to deal with this contention and take a decision thereon merits and in accordance with law. 9. Before we conclude, we would like to place on record our deep appreciation of the very able manner in which both the learned departmental representative, Sri Srivastava as well as the assessee's learned counsel, Sri Desai put forward their respective arguments. 10. The appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed. The cross objective for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75 filed by the assessee now no more survive and for statistical purposes will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
