9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the face of the second revised return, the assessee could not be held guilty of an offence under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal had any material before it for deleting the penalty of Rs. 50,000 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Tribunal's Decision on the Second Revised Return and Offence Under Section 18(1)(c) The Tribunal held that the second revised return filed by the assessee was a valid return under section 15 of the Wealth-tax Act. Since there was no difference between the declared wealth and the assessed wealth in the second revised return, the penalty imposable was "nil". The Tribunal provided six reasons to support this conclusion: 1. The second revised return was filed under section 15, and there was no difference between the declared and assessed wealth. 2. According to Explanation 2 to section 18(1), the assessee could file a revised return before the completion of the assessment, regardless of whether inaccuracies in the original return were detected. 3. The value of interest of an HUF in the firm was not taxable. 4. Although the assessee was guilty of gross neglect in evaluating the shares of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills at the last year's rate, the valuation of the asset was a matter of estimation, and there was no element of an offence in it. 5. The equity shares of M/s. Modi Textile Corporation Ltd. were incorrectly shown as taxable in the second revised return, making it immaterial that they were shown incorrectly in the earlier returns and claimed as exempt. 6. The assessee was not guilty of any offence under section 18(1)(c) regarding preference shares. The court emphasized that Explanation 1 to section 18(1) essentially relates to a rule of evidence, whereby a presumption of concealment arises if the value of any assets returned is less than 75% of the value determined in an assessment. However, this presumption is rebuttable, and the assessee can prove that the incorrect return was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The court highlighted that the burden on the assessee is similar to that in a civil case, decided on the preponderance of probabilities. Once the assessee establishes that the failure to return the correct value did not arise from fraud or gross or wilful neglect, the burden shifts to the Department to prove that the concealment was dishonest or contumacious. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which stated that penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is quasi-criminal, and penalty should not be imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct. Penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so, and discretion should be exercised judicially, considering all relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority may refuse to impose it in cases of technical or venial breaches or bona fide mistakes. Applying these principles, the court found that the assessee had no intention to conceal assets, as evidenced by the consistent mention of certain assets in all returns and the payment of tax on these assets. The incorrect valuation of shares was a matter of estimation, and the incorrect entries in the first revised return did not constitute an offence. The court concluded that the assessee had established that the failure to return the correct value of some assets did not arise from fraud or gross or wilful neglect, shifting the burden to the Department, which failed to prove intentional concealment. Issue 2: Material for Deleting the Penalty Given the affirmative answer to the first issue, the second issue regarding the material for deleting the penalty did not arise and was not addressed. The court concluded that no penalty could be imposed in this case, and therefore, the question of material for deleting the penalty was moot. Conclusion The court answered the first question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Department, and did not address the second question. No order as to costs was made.
|
