9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1958 showing a deficiency of Rs. 2,73,219. The assessment was completed on 12th March, 1962 on a net wealth of Rs.13,31,438. This was appealed against. In the meanwhile the assessee died and his legal representative filed revised returns on various dates. Finally, the Tribunal in the appeals set aside the assessment to be assessed again. The final revised return was filed on 6th Sept., 1975 admitting a net wealth of 13,62,406. 3. For asst. yr. 1959-60 late Janab Sowdagar Mahboob Khan filed a return admitting a wealth of Rs. 6,19,835 on 14th Feb., 1961. A revised return was filed by the legal representative on 6th Sept., 1975 admitting wealth of Rs. 13,14,967. The assessments were completed for both the years on 27th Sept., 1975 on a tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has come on second appeal. On behalf of the assessee, it was submitted that there was no case for the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the difference in the wealth finally assessed and originally returned was due to the valuation of properties and not due to any omission. The occasion for revaluation was the estate duty assessment wherein the correct details such as location, valuation, condition of the property etc., were ascertained and also as a sort of closing protracted proceedings, the assessee accepted an adhoc deduction in the values for the WT assessments and filed the returns. The immovable properties were extensive in nature and some of them are lease hold properties. They are dispersed at various places and in dilapid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of returns and revised returns and the IAC has clearly brought on record that there has been concealment. At least as far as the first year is concerned, there are some omissions of properties in the original return. The values adopted finally would clearly show that the original returns show inaccurate particulars. Penalty can be rightly levied on the legal representative. 7. Having carefully considered the matter, we are of the opinion that on the facts and circumstances of this case no penalty can be levied. 1957-58 is the first year of assessments under wealth-tax and a perusal of the record shows that the assessee filed the first return on 25th May, 1958. This showed a deficiency as noted in the penalty order. There are other inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the penalty reply the assessee has urged in paragraph 3 that no property has been left out and not effort has been made to rebut this presumption. As regards the movable properties, it has been explained that the increase was due to the valuation of the interest of the assessee in certain mines by adopting Parke's formula. This would again show that the revised return was occasioned by adopting one of the methods of valuation, whereas the assessee appears to have adopted his own value for purpose of filing the return. It is also claimed that some of the leasehold mines were not working and alienated and hence they were either not valued or valued at a low rate. A share is a firm was agreed to be included even though it was not recovera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
