9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment was completed under s. 16(3) at a total wealth of Rs. 2,38,19,699. Later on, the assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order and the first appellate authority allowed a relief of Rs. 64,51,256 to the assessee. 2.1 The AO issued show-cause notice under s. 18(1)(c) to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under s. 18(1)(c) be not imposed against the assessee in respect of the wealth which the assessee had not disclosed before the then AO in respect of the land at Delhi, amounting to Rs. 35,35,193 and the land at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh which was taken in the assessment at Rs. 83,04,459. In its reply dt. 16th Sept., 2003, the assessee contended before the AO that the penalty proceedings initiated against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the bona fide belief that it was not subject to wealth. The assessee submitted that even during the year under consideration, certain sums have been expended on the abovesaid land and, therefore, exemption was claimed in respect of the land and building constructed thereon as on 31st March, 1998. The assessee further submitted before the CWT(A) that nothing has been concealed and all the particulars with regard to the computation of wealth have been filed. At the time of completion of the assessment, according to the AO, as per provision of s. 2(e) of the WT Act, land proceeding occupied by any buildings which have been constructed, are to be excluded from the definition of 'urban land' and accordingly since the construction had not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely, Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), A.V. Thomas & Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 499, 503 (Mad), P.S.S. Bommanna Chettiar vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 26 (Mad), CIT vs. Navnitlal M. Mehta (1970) 77 ITR 990, 994 (MP) and CIT vs. Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills (1972) 86 ITR 776 (All) that mens rea or guilty mind is an essential ingredient before levying penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Udyog (1997) 227 ITR 209 (MP) has held that a deduction under s. 80J claimed under a bona fide manner did not lead to concealment. There is also a judgment of CIT vs. K.P.V. Shaik Mohaammed Rowther & Co. (P) Ltd. (1998) 145 CTR (Mad) 396 : (1998) 232 ITR 176 (Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither able to controvert the observations made in the order of the first appellate authority nor was able to cite any case law in support of the issue involved in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue nor was able to give any case law which was applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the Revenue in order to convince the Bench that the AO has rightly imposed the impugned penalty amount. 2.6 On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee placing strong reliance on the reasoning given in the order of the first appellate authority submitted that the first appellate authority after considering the submissions of the assessee has rightly applied the case law while deleting the impugned penalty amount. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
