2016 (1) TMI 1018 - AT - Wealth-tax

Inclusion of cash-in-hand in the wealth tax assessment - It is argued that Receivable is recorded in the balance filed with the Department before income tax scrutiny proceedings for A.Y 2009-10. Simply, the nomenclature changed from Receivable to cash-in-hand with custodians does not amount the concealment of wealth. However the WTO has disregarded the claim of the assessee and confirmed penalty @ 200% of the tax sought to be evaded - bonafide ignorance, Held that - The assessee is running a good business in the brand name of Raja Group and paying huge taxes. Therefore on merit we find that the assessee has defaulted in the payment of wealth tax. However we find from the order of the AO that the penalty has just been initiated without recording the reason whether it is for the concealment of the wealth or furnishing in accurate particulars of income. The penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed on the two counts i.e. Firstly, for concealment of wealth and secondly for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of wealth. However the AO has not recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order for levying the penalty but just initiated penalty proceedings. - the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act.
2. Classification of "Receivable" as "Cash in hand".
3. Procedural defects in penalty notice under section 274.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act:
The appeals filed by the assessee challenge the imposition of penalties under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The penalties were initially imposed at 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, but the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) reduced them to 100%. The primary argument from the assessee was that the additional wealth was voluntarily disclosed before any notice from the department, and the taxes with interest were paid. The appellate tribunal found that the assessee failed to disclose true wealth until notices were issued and upheld the penalty imposition. However, it noted procedural lapses in the penalty initiation process.

2. Classification of "Receivable" as "Cash in hand":
The assessee showed an amount of Rs. 15,65,90,000 as receivable in the balance sheet, which was later identified as cash in hand during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the amount was with friends, relatives, and well-wishers, and not actually in hand. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) treated this as cash in hand, leading to additional wealth tax and subsequent penalties. The tribunal observed that the assessee's failure to disclose this as cash in hand initially led to the penalty, despite the voluntary disclosure later.

3. Procedural defects in penalty notice under section 274:
The tribunal highlighted significant procedural defects in the penalty notices issued under section 274. The notices did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of wealth or furnishing inaccurate particulars of wealth. This lack of clarity and specificity violated principles of natural justice. The tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which mandates that penalty notices must clearly state the grounds for penalty. The tribunal concluded that the defective notices rendered the penalty orders invalid.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed all the appeals filed by the assessee, canceling the penalties imposed for the assessment years in question. The decision was based on procedural defects in the penalty notices and the failure of the authorities to clearly specify the grounds for the penalties. The tribunal emphasized the need for specific and clear penalty notices to uphold principles of natural justice.