Ajit K. Sengupta, J.
1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 :
'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing to take the value of jewellery as on March 31, 1975, March 31, 1976, and March 31, 1977, at Rs. 68,827, Rs. 68,827 and Rs. 76,000, respectively, when the assessee herself disclosed the value of jewellery at Rs. 1,83,000 as on March 31, 1974 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in relying on the valuation report filed by the assessee for determining the value of jewellery when such appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 were rejected itself by the Tribunal in its consolidated order for assessment years 1967-68 to 1974-75 in Wealth-tax Appeals Nos. 1289 to 1295 of 1980 ?'
2. This reference relates to the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee, an individual, in respect of the valuation dates March 31, 1975, March 31, 1976, and March 31, 1977, corresponding to the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, In all these three years, while filing her wealth-tax returns, the assessee declared the value of jewellery and ornaments held by her on the relevant valuation dates at Rs. 59,286, Rs. 68,927 and Rs. 68,927, respectively. The Wealth-tax Officer, while completing the assessments of the assessee for the said years under Section 16(3) of the said Act, assessed the value of jewellery and ornaments for the said threeyears at Rs. 1,94,000, Rs. 2,13,700 and Rs. 2,33,000, respectively, The Wealth-tax Officer referred to the fact that the assessee had filed the disclosure petition under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, accompanied by returns of her net wealth in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1974-75 and, in such disclosure, the assessee declared the value of her jewellery at Rs. 1,83,000 as on March 31, 1974. Based on the value of jewellery and ornaments so declared by the assessee in her disclosure petition in respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the Wealth-tax Officer estimated the value of jewellery and ornaments in respect of the subsequent three years at Rs. 1,94,000, Rs. 2,13,700 and Rs. 2,33,000, respectively.
3. Before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), the assessee submitted that the value of jewellery in her wealth-tax returns for the assessment year 1975-76 was declared by her at Rs. 59,286 based on the valuation report dated March 2, 1981, given by a Government approved valuer. It was also submitted that while making voluntary disclosure in the earlier years, the assessee did neither file any details of her jewellery nor did she furnish any valuation report. The case of the assessee was that since she had now obtained a valuation report from a Government approved valuer in respect of her jewellery and ornaments and since such report has now been filed with the Wealth-tax Officer, it was wrong on his part to take the value of the jewellery and ornaments at estimated figures based on the valuation declared in the disclosure petition for the earlier years. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) found that a similar contention was advanced before the Tribunal in the earlier years as well but the Tribunal by its order dated February 28, 1982, had rejected such contentions and had upheld the valuation of jewellery for the purpose of charge to wealth-tax in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 on the same figure at which the same was declared by the assessee in her wealth-tax return filed along with the disclosure petition. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), therefore, upheld the valuation of jewellery and ornaments as adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer.
4. On further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, the contentions before the lower authorities on behalf of the assessee in regard to the valuation of jewellery and ornaments were reiterated. On behalf of the Revenue, it was submitted before the Tribunal that the Wealth-tax Officer had moderately enhanced the value of jewellery and ornaments for the three years under appeal as compared to the value declared by the assessee herself in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 having regard to the rise in the price of gold during these three years. The Tribunal noted that thevaluation report filed by the assessee contained full details of 18 items of jewellery and ornaments. The assessee did not file any valuation report nor did she give any details of jewellery held by her along with her disclosure petition for the earlier years. The Tribunal also noted that, having regard to the higher value of Rs. 1,83,000 declared by the assessee in her wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1974-75 filed along with the disclosure petition, the Assessing Officer may be entitled to look upon the valuation report now filed showing a much lower value with suspicion; but without bringing on record any further material, the tax authorities cannot reject the valuation report filed by the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the value admitted by the assessee in her voluntary disclosure has been established to be erroneous and the same is, therefore, neither conclusive nor binding on the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to its earlier decision in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 but chose to distinguish it on the ground that there the Tribunal placed strong reliance on the declaration made by the assessee in her voluntary disclosure petition and the same was held to be final and binding Upon the assessee. In this year, the Tribunal observed that there was no declaration of the nature as made by the assessee under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. In the absence of any such declaration, the Tribunal observed, the Revenue cannot assess the value of jewellery at any figure higher than that returned by the assessee.
5. At the hearing of this reference, counsel appearing for the assessee as well as for the Revenue, reiterated their respective submissions as made before the Tribunal. In our view, the Tribunal proceeded in a wholly erroneous manner and it wrongly placed the onus upon the Revenue. The details of items of jewellery and ornaments as held by the assessee on the relevant valuation dates are matters of fact which are best known to the assessee. It is for the assessee to file such details. It is true that the valuation of jewellery and ornaments on any particular date may not be exactly known to the assessee and for this purpose an assessee may rely on the expertise of an approved valuer. But, in this case, the assessee herself declared the value of jewellery and ornaments as on March 31, 1974, at Rs. 1,83,000 while filing her wealth-tax returns for the assessment year 1974-75 along with her disclosure petition under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. The assessee claims that she did not file any details of her jewellery and ornaments along with her disclosure petition, but that was the fault of the assessee. She cannot take advantage of her own wrong. It is true that subsequently she filed the valuation report dated March 2, 1981, containing details of 18 items ofjewellery held by her as on March 31, 1976, with the aggregate valuation of Rs. 68,827. But it is not known whether this valuation report was a complete report in respect of all her jewellery and ornaments held by her as on March 31, 1976. She did not file any affidavit nor did she make any declaration to the effect that she did not own and/or possess any other items than those 18 items as detailed in her valuation report dated March 2, 1981, filed in relation to the assessment year 1976-77. If this was her case, the burden lay on her to satisfy the Wealth-tax Officer by filing affidavits and/or producing any other evidence to show that she only possessed 18 items of jewellery and ornaments as valued by the Government approved valuer in his report dated March 2, 1981. The valuation report by an approved valuer would only indicate the items of jewellery inspected by the valuer and his estimate of their respective values as on the relevant valuation date. A valuation report by an approved valuer is neither intended nor expected to be the full record of all jewellery and ornaments possessed by the person concerned. Rather, the value shown at Rs. 1,83,000 as on March 51, 1974, is a guide as to the extent of jewellery and ornaments possessed and owned by the assessee. If the value as estimated by the valuer subsequently comes to an aggregate value of Rs. 68,823 that would lead to the only logical inference that all the items that accounted for the value of Rs. 1,83,000 as on. March 31, 1974, were not valued by the approved valuer and the 18 items purportedly valued by the said valuer are only part of the lot disclosed under the Disclosure Scheme. In CWT v. Smt. Shirin Paul : [1994]205ITR596(Cal) (Matter No. 1127 of 1982) where judgment was delivered on February 14, 1991, this court considered a similar question. There the question was (at page 597):
'Whether, on the, facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the assessee, while making voluntary disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, did not furnish details of jewellery, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim that the value of the jewellery should not be taken as per value given in the voluntary disclosure but should be determined on the basis of the valuer's report furnished at the time of assessment showing details of jewellery at a lower value, observing that there does not appear to be any dispute about the details and nature of the jewellery articles ?'
6. This Bench observed that the assessee cannot be permitted to say that the value of the assets disclosed in the declaration on the basis whereof taxes have been paid and in respect of which the assessee obtained the benefit or immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, is the correct value ; that too on the basis of the valuation report obtained prior to the disclosure. The position, in our view, would not be different even if the valuation report is obtained subsequently. The value declared and accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the disclosure on March 51, 1974, should be the basis for determining the valuation on the next following valuation date. It is an admitted fact that the assessee herself declared the value of her own jewellery and ornaments at Rs. 1,83,000 as on March 31, 1974. The mere fact that the assessee subsequently claimed through a valuation report containing details of 18 items of jewellery held by her as on March 31, 1976, that their value was Rs. 68,827 cannot go to suggest that these are the only items possessed by the assessee on the relevant valuation date. It is wholly erroneous to lay the onus upon the Revenue to bring on record materials to show that the assessee possessed items other than those which are indicated in her valuation report dated March 2, 1981, when admittedly the assessee herself declared the value of jewellery and ornaments held by her as on March 31, 1974, in her disclosure petition at its. 1,83,000. The prices of gold as well as other items have been rising every year since 1974. It is, therefore, inconceivable that the jewellery of the value of Rs. 1,83,000 as on March 31, 1974, would become Rs. 68,827 as on March 31, 1976. The onus, in our view, was wholly upon the assessee to reconcile the position by filing affidavit and/or by producing other evidence, which the assessee, in our view, had miserably failed to do. The Tribunal, in our view, was also wrong in observing as under :
'Value admitted in the declaration has been established to be erroneous and thus not conclusive upon the assessee.'
7. The aforesaid observation of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous since the value admitted in the declaration filed by the assessee in her disclosure petition was established to be correct even by the Tribunal itself in its order dated February 28, 1982. In that view of the matter, we answer both the questions referred by the Tribunal to this court in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.
9. I agree.