1984 (3) TMI 10 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act for assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
2. Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
3. Commissioner of Income-tax's application under section 27(1) to refer questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order.
4. Tribunal's rejection of the Commissioner's application and subsequent filing of applications by the Commissioner.
5. Tribunal's consideration of the Explanation to section 18(1)(c) of the Act regarding the penalty imposition.
6. Tribunal's finding that the assessee did not commit fraud or gross or wilful neglect in submitting original returns.
7. Evaluation of whether the Tribunal's findings were based on conjectures and surmises.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of penalties under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after finding that the original returns were filed voluntarily and in good faith, without any fraud or wilful neglect by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties were unjustified as the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof. The Commissioner of Income-tax sought to refer questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order under section 27(1) of the Act, but the Tribunal rejected the application, stating that the finding of fact regarding the absence of fraud or wilful neglect was based on a thorough consideration of the evidence on record. The Commissioner filed subsequent applications, challenging the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Explanation to section 18(1)(c) of the Act, which presumes concealment of assets if the declared wealth is significantly lower than the assessed wealth unless proven otherwise by the assessee. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee did not act fraudulently or negligently in the original returns submission was upheld, and it was deemed a factual determination. The court dismissed the Commissioner's applications, stating that the Tribunal's findings were not based on conjectures or surmises, and no legal questions arose from the Tribunal's order. The applications were deemed meritless, and costs were not awarded.