9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 18(1)(c) deleted by ITAT Jaipur. 2. Discrepancy in valuation of assets between assessee and Departmental Valuer. 3. Application of Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) for determining concealment. 4. Assessee's contention of filing return on an estimate basis. 5. Onus on assessee to prove correct valuation of assets. Analysis: The Department filed two appeals challenging the deletion of penalties under section 18(1)(c) by the ITAT Jaipur. The dispute arose from a variance in the valuation of properties between the assessee and the Departmental Valuer, leading to an increase in the assessed net wealth. The Department argued that the assessee's claim of filing returns based on an approved valuer's report was incorrect, as the valuation was done on an estimate basis. The WTO applied Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c), which deems inaccurate particulars if the assessed value is less than 70% of the determined value, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee. The ITAT observed that the assessee had indeed filed returns on an estimate basis, not relying on an approved valuer's report. The assessment was based on the Departmental Valuer's report, accepted by the assessee for the relevant years. Explanation 4 places the onus on the assessee to establish the correctness of the returned value when a significant variance exists. The valuation must be based on a scientific method for accuracy. In this case, the ITAT found that the assessee's approach invited trouble by not valuing the assets accurately, leading to a confirmed concealment based on the WTO's observations and the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the Department's appeals, reinstating the order of the WTO and overturning the decision of the AAC. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate valuation in wealth assessment and the consequences of failing to provide correct particulars, emphasizing the need for proper valuation methods to avoid penalties for concealment.
|
