9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gst other movable assets, showed the value of jewellery owned by her at Rs. 1,83,000 as on 31-3-1974. The authorised submits that on obtaining approval valuer's report dated 30-4-1972 relating to the jewellery owned the assessee's estimate of the jewellery turned out to be wrong on higher side. He further submitted that the assessee being novice the government approved valuer's report should prevail. In short, the contention of the assessee is that the value of jewellery as on 31-3-1975 should be taken on the basis of the value determined by the approved valuer at Rs. 59,268 instead of Rs. 1,83,000 shown in the voluntary disclosure. On verification of the said voluntary disclosure records it is seen that the assessee neither filed details of jewellery nor furnished the valuer's report along with the disclosure application. What prevented the assessee from doing so ? The assessee cannot take advantage of her own laches, if any. Even for argument's sake it is admitted that the assessee is novice, how could there be huge difference of Rs. 1,23,732 between the valuation made by the assessee and the valuer. The difference works out to more than 200%. The possession of the number of item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed form and manner to be correct and complete in every respect, and that having regard to the scheme of the Voluntary Disclosure Act, so far as the declarant is concerned, the information is final and binding on her at least for the assessment years covered thereunder. The fact that some other assessee is also assessed on the same asset or a portion thereof covering the declaration cannot, in our opinion, invalidate the declaration made by the assessee in accordance with section 15(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Wealth Ordinance, 1975 and accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Coming to the objection of the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 against the determination of the valuation of the jewellery, we see that the Wealth-tax Officer accepted the values that were returned by the assessee in each of the two years. In view of this fact, it has to be held that the order of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner on this point was just and proper. Viewed thus, we would uphold the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. " 4. In the impugned orders, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submission that value of jewellery be taken as per appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o examine what admission was made and how much weight is to be attached to the same ? 7. Sections 17 to 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with various kinds of admissions, their relevancy, admissibility and relevant worth. As per law, by now well settled, a voluntary acknowledgement of fact is the best piece of evidence that an opposite party can rely upon. Admission is also used to discredit evidence or witnesses of opposite party. Admission is substantive evidence pro prio vigore. What a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so unless the presumption is rebutted. At the same time, admission can be withdrawn, shown to be wrong based upon misapprehension or mistake of fact or law. Probate value of admission depends upon the background in which it is made and the circumstances in which it is being used. The strict rules relating to admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act are not applicable to proceedings under the Direct taxes. All the same even in these proceedings admission has to be considered and evaluated. 8. Before we refer to the admission made in this case, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Wealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if any made, is relevant and can be used against the assessee. But it is clear that no admission on nature and quantity of jewellery held was made. No valuation report or details thereof was filed with the declaration. Thus, admission in the declaration does not help the Assessing Officer in ascertaining the nature or quantity of jewellery. According to the assessee, she held only 18 items of jewellery detained in the report. The valuation in declaration for 1974-75 may entitle the Assessing Officer to look upon the report with suspicion. But on suspicion alone the report could not be thrown out. Unfortunately, no further material was collected. Without material we cannot hold that the assessee had more than 18 items. These 18 items being the assets proved to be held on the relevant valuation dates, and their value alone could be determined and assessed. 10. The second stage relates to determination of valuation of 18 items of jewellery. Here again, the assessee's claim of valuation is supported by the opinion of an expert and it is nobody's case that the registered valuer wrongly fixed the value of different items. It was open to the revenue to show that the value of 18 items of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
