R.K.BALI, VIMAL GANDHI
Smt. Sheila Rani Anand – Appellant
Versus
Inspecting Assistant Commissioner – Respondent
Per Vimal Gandhi - In all these appeals, the assessees have objected to levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of Wealth-tax Act for disclosure of low value of jewellery in the returns. The relevant particulars of wealth assessed; value of jewellery shown and assessed in the three cases are as under:
| Name of assessee | Wealth Assessed | Value of jewellery shown in the original returns | Value of jewellery assessed |
| | Rs. | Rs. | Rs. |
| Pradeep Kumar Anand | 2,73,890 | 1,20,000 | 2,23,390 |
| Smt. Shiela Rani Anand | 19,57,098 | 1,80,000 | 3,00,000 |
| C.L. Anand, HUF | 26,96,307 | 1,04,039 | 1,88,495 |
2. The assessees have claimed that the value of jewellery was disclosed on the basis of value shown in the immediately preceding assessment year as the said value was taken to be valid for 3 years as per the instructions of the CBDT. However, in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee got the jewellery valued and furnished the report of registered valuer to the assessing officer before any discrepancy was detected. There is some dispute on this controversy but after considering relevant record, we are inclined to hold that the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.