2002 (4) TMI 228 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty imposed under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957 by the learned CWT(A) for the asst. yr. 1988-89.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the deletion of a penalty imposed under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 by the learned CWT(A) for the assessment year 1988-89. The penalty was initiated based on an addition made by the AO for the value of a farm house claimed as exempt under s. 2(e)(iii) of the WT Act. The AO rejected the assessee's contentions and imposed the penalty, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the CWT(A).

The assessee's defense against the penalty included arguments such as the exemption being allowed in earlier years, no surrenders made by the assessee, and the claim that there should be no distinction between agricultural land and a farm house for exemption purposes. The AO, however, rejected these contentions, stating that the original claim was wrong, the farm house did not qualify for exemption, and the assessee had accepted the addition by not filing an appeal against the assessment order.

The CWT(A) considered the submissions and contentions made by the assessee and concluded that the penalty was not justified. He observed that the value of the property was disclosed by the appellant, and the imposition of the penalty was not warranted. The CWT(A) relied on a Delhi High Court judgment to support his decision and canceled the penalty.

The Revenue, aggrieved by the decision, appealed before the Tribunal. The Departmental Representative argued in favor of the penalty, while the authorized representative of the assessee supported the CWT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and materials on file, upheld the CWT(A)'s decision. It noted that the assessee had disclosed the property particulars, claimed exemption based on previous allowances, and the addition was due to a difference of opinion regarding the exemption claim. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under s. 18(1)(c) was not applicable in this case, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.