SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

R.K.BALI, VIMAL GANDHI
Smt. Sheila Rani Anand – Appellant
Versus
Inspecting Assistant Commissioner – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Prem Singh,Raj Kumar

ORDER

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top