9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, it is stated that as far as Metcalf Road property was concerned, it was valued by the valuation cell and the value of the other property was adopted keeping in view the past pattern of assessment. 3. It is an accepted fact and important to note that assessment came to be accepted by the respondent. 4. The WTO holding the appellant to be a defaulter in terms of section 18(1)(c), read with Explanation 4 thereto issued notice, to which the assessee responded by submitting that in returning the value of the aforesaid properties, she was guided by the valuation certificate dated 24-6-1969 of a Government approved valuer which was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee's case was that in view of the approved valuer's certificate, the assessment based on departmental valuation cell could not bring her within the ambit of concealment provision of section 18(1)(c) even read with Explanation 4. 5. Referring to the valuation of the property at Faridabad, the WTO in his penalty order stated as under : " As regards the value of the property No. 15/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana though the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO was justified in regarding the appellant as a defaulter and in imposing the said impugned penalty on her. The learned counsel Shri C.S. Agarwal, urges before me that the Wealth-tax Officer has not properly appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had come within the ambit of the said concealment penalty section of the WT Act. He also draws my attention to some of the decided cases of the IT Act. On careful consideration of the submissions made before me and on going through the records I am of the view that the WTO was not justified in regarding the appellant as a defaulter under section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act (read with Explanation 4 thereto) and in imposing the penalty on the appellant. As pointed out by me earlier, the assessment order of the WTO does not at all discuss anywhere the appellant's attempt at concealing her wealth by understating the value of the above-said properties. The WTO should have, in my opinion, discussed at length why he considers that the appellant had come within the ambit of section 18(1)(c) (read with Explanation 4 thereto) of the WT Act in his assessment order itself while me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort. The appellant has also brought on record that she was not the owner of the entire building but was one-half owner of the said house property, the other half, according to the appellant, belonged to her sister. The appellant had urged before the AAC in her appeal against the wealth-tax assessment order for this assessment year that the valuation of the department's valuer is erroneous as, according to the appellant, it had inadvertently taken the entire building for the purpose of valuation. Though the appellant had lost the appeal mainly on the ground that she had not objected to the valuation report of the departmental valuer, the fact remains that the appellant had pointed out that the department's valuer's report could have proceeded on wrong assumptions as regards the covered area. In any case, in my opinion, the appellant cannot be considered to be coming within the ambit of section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act read with Explanation 4 thereto, as the appellant has taken due care and caution by relying upon her approved valuer's valuation certificate in valuing her residential property for this assessment year. The other property was also valued by the appellant on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erstatement of the value of assets or over-statement of the value of debts does not arise due to any fraud or any gross or willful neglect on the part of the taxpayer, even though the amount by which the value of assets has been understated or, as the case may be, the value of debts has been overstated, is more than 25 per cent of the amount determined on assessment. Thus, where a taxpayer has given relevant particulars of his assets correctly and the value thereof declared by him in the return is in accordance with the valuation made by an approved valuer, the taxpayer will not be subjected to penalty for under-statement of the value of any asset merely on the ground that its value has been determined in the assessment at a higher amount. Approved valuers referred to above or those notified, from time to time, by the Central Government in the Official Gazette under section 4(3) of the Estate Duty Act. These valuers are competent to act as valuers also for the purposes of the Wealth-tax Act. The term ' valuer ' has been defined in section 2(r) of the Wealth-tax Act to mean a valuer appointed under section 4 of the Estate Duty Act. In cases where a dispute regarding the valuation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sset), or then, such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct value of the asset or, as the case may be, the correct value of the debt or the correct net wealth did not arise from any fraud or any gross or willful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of assets or debts for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section." " Explanation 4 : Where the value of any asset returned by any person is less than seventy per cent of the value of such asset as determined in an assessment under section 16 or section 17, such person shall be deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such asset within the meaning of clause (c) of this sub-section, unless he proves that the value of the asset as returned by him is the correct value." 14. The answer would be that though the provisions seem different, the purport is the same, i.e., once there is difference in the returned and the assessed wealth of over 25 or 30 per cent, then the onus to prove innocence shifts on the assessee and the revenue is absolved of the responsibility of establishin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
