9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 448 - AT - Wealth-taxPenalty imposed u/s 18(1)(c) of the W.T Act - concealment of wealth for not filing the W.T return voluntarily - Held that - In the present case, The AO must have found that that the assessee concealed his particulars of any asset or furnished any inaccurate particulars of assets or debts as prescribed in clause ( c) of section 18 of the W.T Act 1957 and AO has not given any cogent reason for imposition of penalty. As discussed above mere non-furnishing of a return per se is not tantamount to concealed his particulars of any asset or furnished any inaccurate particulars of assets or debts within the meaning of clause ( c) of section 18 of the W.T Act 1957 Since the assessee himself is a senior citizen and his the then AR, Mr. K.V Singh was serious ill and hospitalized is reasonable cause for not filing the wealth tax return for the assessment year under consideration in time. Thus referring to Explanation-3 to clause (c) of section 18(1) of the W.T Act 1957, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed u/s. 18(1)( c) of the W.T Act 1957 and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable in law. The same is, therefore quashed, accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 2. Applicability of Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 3. Consideration of reasonable cause for delay in filing the wealth tax return. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957: The appellant contended that the penalty of ?55,009/- imposed under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07 was unjustified. The assets had already been disclosed in the Income Tax return and Balance Sheet filed for the same assessment year before the issuance of the notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating that the appellant failed to file the wealth tax return voluntarily and relied on the decision in K.P. Madhusudanan Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (S.C). The appellant argued that there was no concealment of assets or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the assets were already disclosed prior to the notice. 2. Applicability of Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957: The CIT(A) held that Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) was applicable since the appellant filed the return only in response to the notice issued under Section 17. The CIT(A) stated that the appellant failed to prove that the delay was not due to fraud or neglect. The appellant argued that the conditions under Explanation-3 were not met, as there was no concealment of assets or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the appellant had been filing returns regularly and the delay was due to the illness of the Authorized Representative (AR), which was a reasonable cause. 3. Consideration of Reasonable Cause for Delay in Filing the Wealth Tax Return: The Tribunal considered the appellant's age (72 years) and the illness of the AR, Mr. K.V. Singh, who was hospitalized and advised to rest, as reasonable causes for the delay in filing the wealth tax return. The appellant filed the return after receiving the notice and the AO accepted it without any adverse findings. The Tribunal referred to the case of Chhaganlal S Uteriya Vs. ITO & Anr (2011) 337 ITR 350 (Guj.), which held that mere failure to file a return does not amount to concealment unless Explanation-3 is applicable. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions under Explanation-3 were not cumulatively satisfied, and the penalty was not justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the penalty imposed under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and allowed the appeal, considering the reasonable cause for the delay and the lack of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The decision emphasized that the mere non-filing of a return does not per se amount to concealment without meeting the conditions under Explanation-3. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deemed unsustainable in law.
|
