TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (1) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. yr. 1957-58. In respect of the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72, also the assessee had disclosed the value of jewellery at Rs. 25,000 but for the asst. yr. 1970-71 the WTO raised its value to Rs. 30,000 and the assessee filed appeal before the AAC who confirmed the value taken by the WTO. For the asst. yr. 1971-72 the matter went up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dt. 31st Aug., 1974 had confirmed the value at Rs. 30,000. In the three years in question the WTO had written to the assessee that the value of jewellery was not supported by any certificate from a registered valuer and in order to arrive at proper valuation of Jewellery the assessee was directed to file a report of the registered valuer. This letter was written on 18th Jan., 1975. On 16th Feb., 1976 the assessee wrote to the WTO enclosing the report of the registered valuer in which the value of the jewellery was shown at Rs. 37,390. The assessee also, wrote to the WTO that his return should be treated as amended to the extent of increased value of jewellery as indicated in the report of the valuer. The value as now certified by the registered valuer has been accepted by the WTO while making the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view that the assessee had been avoiding tax from year to year and taking all the years together the incidence of tax was not small. The CIT (A) further rejected the plea regarding lack of reasonable opportunity and held that the WTO had given several opportunities starting from the notice issued on the completion of the assessment and he held that the reasonable opportunity had been given to the assessee in this regard. The CIT (A), therefore, held that jewellery which was not exempt for any of these years had been valued at Rs. 25,000 by the assessee though this value was much more on the valuation dates. He also took into consideration that the valuation report had been filed after the request made by the WTO and after his repeated reminders. From these facts the CIT (A) came to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast on him under Expln. 1 to s. 18(1)(c) and he, therefore, held that the penalty was leviable. However, considering the fact that the assessee had filed the valuer's report as required by the WTO he reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs. 15,000 in each of the three years. 5. It has been submitted before us by the ld. counsel for the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the absence of specific charge in any of the notices the charge was vague and it should be held that the assessee never got a reasonable opportunity to meet the charge against him. It was further submitted that the quantum was excessive and considering the small tax involved the presumption should be in favour of the assessee's bona fides in showing the value as it was shown in the returns. 7. The Deptl. Rep. on the other hand submitted that no reasonable person would think that jewellery having value of Rs. 35,000 in 1957-58 would have the same value in the year 1972-73 when the value of precious metals and precious stones have gone up by six times. He pointed out that the Explanation was clearly applicable and, therefore, the onus shifted to the assessee and that onus has not been discharged. He pointed out that the Explanation applied if there was a difference of more than 25 per cent to the value of each asset. He relied on the decision in Rukmani Bahu vs. Addl. CIT 1978 CTR (All) 469 : (1979) 116 ITR 460 (All) for the proposition that the Explanation was applicable and the assessee had to discharge his onus. It was submitted that the valuation report had been filed only at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. 10. The WTO has referred to the vast difference between the value of gold and precious stones in 1957-58 and the years under consideration. He also referred to the fact that the value had gone up by six times. However, when we look to the actual value shown in the report of the valuer and taken by the WTO we find that the difference is not that much and the value as per valuer's report is about 11/2 times of the value estimated by the assessee. The provisions of s. 18(1)(c) r/w Expln. 1 lay down that there will be a presumption of concealment if the value of asset returned by any person is less than 75 per cent of the value of such asset as determined under an assessment under s. 16 or 17 of the Act. In the present case there is such difference between the first return and the final assessment, but there is no such difference between the revised return and the assessment. Now the question for consideration is whether the assessee committed any act of concealment in filing the original return and whether his revising the return was not a bona fide act. We find that the assessee had been showing this value year after year and 1972-73 was the first year after the amendment of la....