- (1.) These 9 appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1981-82 are directed against the consolidated order of the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) dated 23-3-1990. The inclusion of value of certain jewellery in the wealth of the assessee in all the aforesaid years has been challenged on the ground that the jewellery in fact belonged to assessee's daughter and was her wealth.
(2.) The jewellery which is subject matter of dispute was found in Locker No. 84 in the name of assessee's daughter Miss Amrita Ghosh with Allahabad Bank, Alipore Branch, Calcutta during the course of the search operation carried by the revenue in July, 1974. The assessee in order to cover jewellery's acquisition, made a disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975. Taking note of above disclosure, the Wealth Tax Officer added value of the jewellery in the wealth of the assessee.
(3.) The assessee challenged the above additions in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that the value of jewellery should be excluded from the wealth assessed as the same was gifted to the assessee's daughter earlier to 1972. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the above contention and justified inclusion of jewellery with the following pertinent remarks "It has been urged by the learned Advocate that the jewellery in the name of daughter who became major in 1972 should be excluded from the assessment. It has been pleaded by the learned Advocate that the jewelleries purchased in the name of daughter was the property of the elder daughter since she became major and hence the same was not includible in the hands of the appellant. It has been admitted that the entire jewelleries were purchased by the appellant. In his view the jewelleries purchased for the purpose of use by the daughter must be excluded. It cannot be denied that the investment in jewellery was made by the appellant out of his own fund and constitute his wealth. In case of any gift being made, the donor became liable to gift-tax. Learned Advocate for the appellant could not specifically state when jewellery purchased has been actually gifted to her. The mere fact that the elder daughter became major in 1972 and jewellery purchased in her name changed ownership and as such should be excluded is not an acceptable proposition. The jewellery allegedly purchased for elder daughter is not excludible from the net wealth." The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), however, allowed relief of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 40,000 in the value assessed in different assessment years from 1978-79 to 1981-82. The assessee being aggrieved, has brought the issue in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.;