W. T. AS. NOS. 22/KB, 22-A/KB OF 1982-83, DECIDED ON 9TH SEPTEMBER, 1985. Versus W. T. AS. NOS. 22/KB, 22-A/KB OF 1982-83, DECIDED ON 9TH SEPTEMBER, 1985.
ORDER
FARHAT Ali KHAN (MEMBER) .‑These two appeals are directed against the consolidated order of learned Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) recorded by her on 20th May, 1982, relating to assessments years 1980‑81 and 1981‑82.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant declared her wealth inter alia consisting of jewellery valued at Rs. 1,26,000 in both the assessment years. However, the value did not inspire the confidence of Wealth Tax Officer who, therefore, asked the appellant to submit the details of the jewellery declared including date of its acquisition slut the appellant declared only the weight thereof which was 880 and 870 tolas respectively for both the assessment years. In the first assessment year the Wealth Tax Officer multiplied the weight of the gold with the bullion market rate prevailing on the valuation date and estimated the value of the jewellery at Rs. 19,57,500. In the next year the Wealth‑tax Officer again applied the same formula but this year allowed 10 % to be deducted from the value of the jewellery on account of "wear and tear". Feeling aggrieved, the appellant went tip in appeal and the learned Commissioner of income‑tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of Wealth‑tax Officer regarding assessment year 1981‑82 and allowed 10% reduction from the gross value of the jewellery. The appellant, however, still feels aggrieved and has come up in appeal.
3. Mr. I-----N-----P-----arguing both the appeals submitted that both the officers below erred in not allowing 10% rebate on account of Khot (Impurities) and 25%. rebate on account of false stones. According to the leaned counsel that was necessary because the Wealth Tax Officer had estimated the value of the jewellery on the basis of the bullion market rate. The learned counsel argued that if the appellant would have sold the jewellery on the respective valuation dates, she might have obtained 65 % of the bullion, rate obtaining on the relevant dates. Alternatively, Mr. P-----argued that appellant was---entitled to atleast to 25%, rebate. The learned counsel in this connection cited before us a decision of this Tribunal reported as (1983) I' T D (Trib.) 32/. He also produced before us several appellate orders of different Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) in support of his contention Mr. A------e------A------the learned Departmental Representative, on the contrary, submitted that the decision of this Tribunal relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant did not lay down the principle that 25 of rebate should be allowed on valuation of jewellery. As far as decisions of the Commissioner were concerned the learned Departmental Representative argued that since they were never cited before the Wealth‑tax Officer not learned Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals), they should not be looked into. Mr. A------ e----A vehemently argued that the appellant eras called upon to give all the details of jewellery but she failed to comply with the directions of the Wealth‑tax Officer. Now could it be said, argued the learned Department Fetal Representative that the weight of the jewellery of the appellant was Inclusive of false stones? According to him, the Wealth‑tax Officer rightly allowed 10% rebate in assessment year 1981‑82 and the learned Commis sioner of Income‑tax (Appeals), by her impugned order, rightly allowed rebate in both the assessment years.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the appellant as weal as the learned Departmental Representative. As for as the decision of this Tribunal is concerned, we are afraid, it does riot lay down that 25% rebate is to be granted when the value of the jewellery was to be estimated for the wealth‑tax purposes. From perusal of the decision it appears that tare value of the jewellery declared in that case amounted to Rs. 19,350 and the assessee had reduced it by 25% in lieu of malting charges etc. The value of the gold was thus estimated at Rs. 14,513. Since the same value of the jewellery was being declared since 1963‑64, the Wealth Tax Officer found it ridiculous and applying the price of the gold obtaining on the valuation date valued the jewellery of the assessee at Rs. 1,48.830 and after deducting the declared value of Rs. 19,350 adopted the value of Rs. 1,29,480 for the wealth‑tax purpose:
5. We have carefully gone through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and with due respect to him we do not something in 'it which may indicate that the Tribunal expressly or impliedly either applied the rate of 25 % rebate or approved it. Since the assessee herself had reduced the value by 25% the Tribunal mentioned it as a fact along with all other facts but it finally upheld the valuation arrived at by the Wealth Tax Officer, as mentioned above. In computing the value of the jewellery the Wealth‑tax Officer did not allow any rebate and the Tribunal has upheld his this order by making the following observation:
"In our opinion, the method adopted by him appears to be quite fair and hence, we vacate the order of the learned Appellate Assis tant Commissioner and restore that of the Wealth Tax Officer in respect of this item."
Let us mention here that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had brought down the valuation of the jewellery to Rs. 93,000 but finally the value arrived at by the Wealth‑tax Officer was upheld. However, we would like to point out that every wealth‑tax assessee, who owns either gold, ornaments or other type of jewellery, is entitled to certain rebate when value thereof is determined for the purpose of payment of such tan. In our judgment, this is necessary because when the gold in shape of ornaments is sold in market, undoubtedly, it does not fetch the bullion price quoted on that particular date. The factors of impurities (Khot), wastage and making charges are kept into consideration and, consequently, the value is reduced accordingly. Similarly, if the ornaments are studded with false stones, the weight thereof, is reduced for the purposes of determining the value thereof. But let us add that percentage of such rebate would depend on facts and circumstances prevailing in each case.
6. As far as the decision of various Commissioners of Income‑tax Appeals are concerned, it seems that the procedure adopted by the learned counsel for the appellant is not just and proper. He did not give any notice in advance to the learned Departmental Representative, which he must have simply because the decisions were not cited earlier at any forum if he wanted to rely upon theta as parallel cases. If the law enjoins upon a Wealth Tax Officer to provide an adequate opportunity to an assessee to meet the parallel cases on which he wants to rely upon, there appears to be no reason available to its not to follow this rule when parallel cases are sought to be relied upon by an assessee for the first time before us and particularly when they have never been cited before at any forum. We realise that the learned Departmental Representative should have been taken by surprise when the photostat copies of the aforesaid decision were produced before us. Undoubtedly, he could not have an opportunity to present the department's view before us through other parallel cases. Moreover, we are also not aware as to whether these decisions are subject‑matter of appeals pending before for us. In those circum stances, we refuse to take cognizance thereof.
7. As far as the claim of the rebate for false stones is concerned, no material has ever been produced at any stage to show that it has ever been allowed to the appellant by the Wealth Tax Authorities. Moreover, there is no evidence, available to show that the jewellery possessed by the appellant is studded in fact with artificial Stones. The Wealth Tax Officer had served a notice on the appellant to provide all the details but she failed to do so. There cannot be any presumption that every ornament or jewellery is always studded with false stones.
8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case we, therefore, think that the order of learned Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) is sustainable in law for the reason that 10% rebate could reasonably be given for impunities or Khot, which she has mentioned in her order. However, with due respect to her, she erred in allowing this 10% rebate not only for impurities or Khot but also for false stones simply because there was no evidence available to prove that the weight of the jewellery was inclusive of false stones as well.
9. To conclude, we find no force in these appeals and are they rejected accordingly. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) is hereby confirmed for both the assessment years.
M. Y. H. Appeals rejected.