9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against levy of penalty for concealment of assessee's net wealth under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh pertained to the levy of penalties on the assessee for concealment of net wealth under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The penalties imposed were Rs. 3,20,104 and Rs. 2,84,553 respectively. The first appellate authority had deleted the penalties, leading to the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal considered the facts of the case, submissions of both parties, contents of the paper-books, and additional factual details provided by the assessee regarding the assessments, penalties, and related dates. The case involved the unfortunate death of an individual in the U.S.A., leaving behind a mother as the nominee for life insurance policies. Assessments were made on the mother, and penalties were imposed based on the reasoning that she was the nominee. However, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smi. Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346, emphasizing that a mere nomination does not confer beneficial interest, and the heirs are entitled to the amount as per succession laws. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessments cannot be based on the nominee's status alone, especially when the succession was governed by the Hindu Succession Act. The Tribunal, drawing from legal principles, noted that concealment requires knowledge and intent, which were lacking in the case of the old mother who was unaware of the assets and insurance amounts due to her son's demise. Referring to the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., the Tribunal stressed that ignorance of the law does not excuse, and there is no presumption of knowledge of all laws. The Tribunal concluded that without evidence of the mother's full knowledge of her rights regarding the insurance policy nomination, there could be no concealment. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369, stating that penalty proceedings are penal and quasi-judicial, requiring the department to prove concealment. The Tribunal found that the revenue had not discharged its burden of proof in demonstrating concealment by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order deleting the penalties was upheld, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed for both assessment years.
|
