V.K. Singhal, J. - (1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated March 25, 1980, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not the owner of the ornaments weighing 80 tolas of gold and that she was holding the same for the benefit of her sons and the same were to be given to their wives on the occasion of their marriage ?"
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of wealth in respect of jewellery acquired at the time of her marriage from her parents and in-laws. Jewellery weighing 80 tolas of gold ornaments received from her mother, Smt. Man Devi, was not declared in the return on the ground that the said ornaments belonged to the wives of the two sons of her son, Dr. S. K. Sharma. An affidavit of the elder sister, Smt. Rajeshwari Rani Pathak, was filed, in which it was deposed that Smt. Man Devi had entrusted about 240 tolas of gold ornaments at the time of her death in 1951 to be passed on equally to the wives of each of the three sons of Smt. Vidyavati with instructions that these ornaments would be further passed on equally to the children of the three sons. It was thus deposed that 80 tolas of gold ornaments which have been one-third share in the said 240 tolas of gold ornaments was passed on to Smt. Kalyani Sharma after her marriage to Dr. S. K. Sharma. THE Wealth-tax Officer found that there was no written will or other evidence that these gold ornaments were ultimately to belong to the wives of the son of the assessee's son. It was observed that the sons of Dr. Sharma were unmarried and, therefore, Smt. Kalyani Sharma, is the owner of 80 tolas of gold ornaments the value of which was included in her net wealth. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, it was observed that the stand taken by the assessee that 80 tolas of gold ornaments would ultimately belong to the wives of her sons and not to her sons, shows a contradiction and observing that there was no evidence to show that Smt. Kalyani Sharma was holding the gold ornaments in trust to be ultimately passed on to the wives of the sons of Dr. S. K. Sharma, the appeal was dismissed. In second appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the affidavit of Smt. Rajeshwari Rani has been accepted and it remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not the owner of the ornaments and was holding them for the benefit of her sons and these were to be given to their wives on the occasion of their marriage. The Revenue has challenged the above order on the ground that the inference which has been drawn by the Tribunal was not in accordance with law. We have considered the arguments. The relevant portion of the affidavit submitted by Smt. Rajeshwari Rani Pathak are as under : "That my mother, Smt. Man Devi, had entrusted me with about 240 tolas of gold ornaments at the time of her death in 1351 to be passed on equally to the wives of each of the three sons of my sister, Smt. Vidyavati, with instructions that these ornaments would be further passed on equally to the children of the three sons. So 80 tolas of gold ornaments, being one-third share in the said 240 tolas of gold ornaments, was passed on by me to Smt. Kalyani Sharma after her marriage to Dr. S.K. Sharma."
(3.) IN the present matter, neither the capacity of Smt. Man Devi has been disputed nor the deponent was cross-examined and the affidavit submitted remained uncontroverted. A finding of fact has thus been recorded. The scope under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act is a limited one and not to reappreciate the evidence or conduct an enquiry. IN these circumstances, we are of the view that the INcome-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not the owner of the ornaments weighing 80 tolas of gold and that she was holding the same for the benefit of her sons and the same were subsequently given to their wives on the occasion of their marriage. Therefore, the finding is not shown to be allegedly perverse and there is no document or evidence on record to take a different interpretation or to come to different findings. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.;