1983 (8) TMI 90 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax (WT) Act.
2. Determination of whether there was concealment of wealth by the assessee.
3. Validity of penalties levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act:
The revenue contended that the case fell within the ambit of Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, which states, "Where the value of any asset returned by any person is less than seventy percent of the value of such asset as determined in an assessment under section 16 or section 17, such person shall be deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such asset within the meaning of clause (c) of this sub-section, unless he proves that the value of the asset as returned by him is the correct value." The revenue argued that since the declared value of the assets was significantly lower than the assessed value, the assessee should be deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars.

2. Determination of whether there was concealment of wealth by the assessee:
The assessee's wealth included a 1/4th share in Harilela House and a flat in Anita Apartments. The assessee disclosed the value of the 1/4th interest in Harilela House at Rs. 1,54,528 for each of the six years, while the WTO valued it significantly higher. Similarly, the flat in Anita Apartments was disclosed at Rs. 60,000, whereas the WTO valued it at Rs. 1,32,000 for the first two years and Rs. 1,23,000 for the remaining four years. The assessee argued that the difference in valuation was due to a bona fide difference of opinion and not due to any concealment or fraud. The CWT(A) accepted this argument, stating that the valuation was based on the cost recorded in the books and a registered valuer's report, which indicated no fraudulent intent.

3. Validity of penalties levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act:
The WTO levied penalties under Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, citing that the difference between the declared and assessed wealth exceeded 25 percent, thus constituting deemed concealment. The CWT(A) disagreed, noting that the assessee had appointed a senior Chartered Accountant to handle the tax matters and had declared the value of the properties based on recognized valuation methods. The CWT(A) concluded that there was no fraud or wilful neglect, and the penalties were canceled.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CWT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalties, agreeing that the case did not fall within the ambit of Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act. The Tribunal noted that the law to be applied for the levy of penalty was the law on the dates when the returns were filed, which was prior to the introduction of Explanation 4. The Tribunal found no evidence of fraud or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee, who had relied on a senior Chartered Accountant and a registered valuer for the valuation of the properties. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.