2021 (6) TMI 215 - AT - Wealth-tax

Wealth tax assessment - omission on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the wealth was intended to avoid payment tax - penalty imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Act - HELD THAT - If the penalty order is perused in the light of the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court 2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT , then it will reveal that the ld.AO was not specific in his finding for which he has visited the assessee with penalty. We also find support from the order of case HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. 2018 (6) TMI 1554 - ITAT AMRITSAR wherein the ld.Third Member held that where the satisfaction of the AO while initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is with regard to alleged concealment of income by the assessee, whereas the imposition of the penalty is for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income , the levy of penalty is not sustainable. It is pertinent here to note that section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 are pari materia to each other in terms of purpose and object, and therefore, proposition of law laid down by various higher judicial forums would be applicable on the same analogous in the cases of proceedings under section 18(1)(c) of the Act as well. Therefore, the impugned order is not in line of law laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, and hence not sustainable. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding this order of the AO. We allow this appeal of the assessee and quash the penalty order- Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for not filing wealth tax return within statutory time allowed.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for not filing the wealth tax return within the specified time. The AO initiated penalty proceedings after the assessee failed to file the wealth tax return despite being liable to do so. The AO observed that the assessee deliberately failed to disclose the full and true value of wealth, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?56,780. The assessee contended before the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (CWT) that there was a change of opinion by the Revenue regarding the nature of the default committed. The assessee argued that the penalty notice and proceedings indicated a discrepancy in the charges of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CWT upheld the penalty, stating that the clerical error in the notice did not invalidate the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal considered whether the penalty imposed under section 18(1)(c) without specifying the particular default of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was valid. The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the charge mentioned in the penalty notice and the penalty order. The Revenue authorities contended that the discrepancy was technical and did not affect the penalty. However, the Tribunal found that such ambiguity in the charge vitiated the proceedings. Citing a previous decision by the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of a clear finding by the Assessing Officer regarding the charge for which the penalty is imposed. The Tribunal also referred to a case where a penalty was struck down due to a lack of a specific finding on concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty order lacked specificity, and therefore, was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal further referenced a decision by the Third Member of the ITAT Amristar Bench, which highlighted that the satisfaction of the AO for initiating penalty proceedings should align with the reason for imposing the penalty. As section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act is analogous to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the principles laid down by higher judicial forums for the latter are applicable. The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not in line with the legal standards set by the jurisdictional High Court and, therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the penalty order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposition lacked specificity in terms of the charge, leading to ambiguity and inconsistency between the penalty notice and order. As per legal precedents and the principles of the Wealth Tax Act and Income Tax Act, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the penalty order.