9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at Rs. 8,000. The total wealth declared by the assessee in the original return was Rs. 1,01,446. On 30th December 1978, the assessee revised the return showing the net wealth at Rs. 1,64,729. In the revised return, the assessee showed her 1/6th share at Rs. 90,000 and the value of the plot at Rs. 41,000. The WTO however, completed the assessment on 17th February 1979 at Rs. 1,68,900. He also issued show cause penalty notice for concealment of particulars of wealth under section 18(1)(c) and not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,500. It included the difference of Rs. 60,000 representing the value of 1/6th share, as declared by the assessee in the original return and of Rs. 90,000 represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue at Rs. 8,000 each and the WTO had made the assessment at Rs. 12,000 and at Rs. 13,000 respectively on 31st December 1973, meaning thereby, after the original return was filed by the assessee for the year under appeal. It is, therefore, clear that the assessments for the consecutive assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71 had been made by the WTO on a single date viz, 31st December 1973 and, then the assessed value ranged so far as the plot of land is concerned between Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 13,000. On these facts, Shri Ranka argues that at the most the assessee would have revised the value of plot of land at Rs. 13,000 over after 31st December 1973, when the assessments for the consecutive four years had been made by the WTO. He argues that as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a higher amount and that included assessee to believe that the value as declared by her in the original return dated 29th August 1972 was not much lesser. His argument is that there was no reason for the assessee to doubt the correctness of the assessment made by the WTO. The latter is the proper authority under the Wealth-tax Act to assess the proper value of the assets belonging to the assessee and the value shown by the assessee not being much lesser than the value assessed by the WTO for the assessment year 1970-71 the assessee believed that the value shown by her was broadly correct. The argument, therefore, is that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of Explanation I on the part of the assessee and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value of an asset is an art and it cannot be reached at by any assessee or expert by arithmetical accuracy. The opinion of the experts will always vary on the point of valuation and no assessee howsoever sincere or vigilent one may be will be able to value an asset with precision and, therefore, the law cannot throw this burden on the assessee. if the argument of the revenue is accepted, that the value of an asset constitutes a particular of the asset under section18(1)(c), then almost without any exception the penalties would be levied for concealment under section 18(1) (c). It is the duty of the WTO to value an asset belonging to the assessee under section 7 and the assessee cannot be visited with the penalty simply because he failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
