9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appealability of orders passed by Wealth-tax Officer under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. - Determination of whether the impugned orders of penalty were under s. 18(1)(c) or s. 18(2A) of the Act. - Merits of levying penalty under s. 18(1)(c) against the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71. Analysis: 1. Appealability of Orders: The Tribunal addressed the issue of appealability of orders passed by the Wealth-tax Officer under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Judicial Member held that an appeal would lie against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Accountant Member disagreed, stating that no appeal would lie against the order of the Wealth-tax Officer. The Third Member resolved this conflict by ruling that appeals would lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the orders passed by the Wealth-tax Officer. 2. Nature of Impugned Orders: The Tribunal deliberated on whether the impugned orders of penalty passed by the Wealth-tax Officer were under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 or merely to give effect to the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under s. 18(2A) of the Act. The Third Member concluded that the impugned orders were indeed under s. 18(1)(c) and not solely to implement the Commissioner's order under s. 18(2A). 3. Merits of Penalty Imposition: Upon reviewing the merits of levying penalties under s. 18(1)(c) against the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71, the Tribunal considered various factors. The assessments had been completed, and the undisclosed assets were voluntarily revealed by the assessee. The tax impact of the undisclosed assets was nominal, and the explanation provided for the omissions was plausible. Additionally, the individuals involved were elderly and illiterate, with their affairs managed by a third party. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or knowledge behind the omissions, emphasizing that mere omissions, even if serious, were insufficient grounds for imposing penalties under s. 18(1)(c). In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, canceling the impugned orders of penalty under s. 18(1)(c) for the assessment year 1970-71.
|
