9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cealed particulars of wealth as is the charge sought to be made out by the Revenue. - no penalty ought to have been levied on the Assessee u/s.18(1)( c) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee. - WTA No. 01/Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2015 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Niloy Baran Som, JCIT-SRDR ORDER Per Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) Central-II, Kolkata in appeal No.4/CC-XVII/CWT(A)CII/ 11-12 dated 10.12.2013. Assessment was framed by DCWT, Central Circle- XVIII, Kolkata u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the penalty order. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant was having taxable wealth for A.Y 2005-06 but the return of wealth was not filed by him voluntarily. The return was filed only after the proceedings were initiated u/s. 17 of W.T. Act in financial year 2009-10. In the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant has contended that there was no concealment because the amount of cash in hand and the value of jewellery were duly disclosed in the balance-sheet as at 31.03.2005 and filed along with the return of income. However, I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention of the appellant because if the appellant had disclosed the amount of jeweller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in hand as well as jewellery and still he did not file his return of wealth voluntarily. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was justified in imposing the penalty u/s. 18(1) of the Act. The penalty imposed by him confirmed. The ground no. 2 and 3 are dismissed. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CWT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal:- 1. For that the order of the Ld. CWT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. For that the Ld. CWT(A) erred in confirming the imposition the penalty of ₹ 35,386/- under sec. 18(1)(c) by the AO when the appellant was under bonafide belief that its wealth did not exceed the taxable limit as there was liability for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,000 is not to be considered for the purpose of determining taxable wealth). As per the law as it prevailed in AY 2005-06, if the quantum of wealth if it is above ₹ 15 lakhs, there was a liability to file return of wealth. The due date for filing the return of wealth for AY 2005-06 was 30-9-2005. Since the Assessee did not file return of wealth a notice u/s.17 of the Act was issued on 4.11.2009/. It is no doubt true that the Assessee filed a return of wealth on 17.2.2010 declaring the quantum of jewellery and cash as forming part of the net wealth of the Assessee. An order of assessment was passed on 28.7.2010 determining the net wealth of the Assessee for charge of wealth tax at ₹ 49,88,575/-. 6. It was his submission that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already been accepted by the revenue in the order of Assessment for AY 2004-05 wherein to the value of jewellery of ₹ 20,28,227 a deduction on account of liability to the extent of ₹ 6,72,756 was allowed in the order of assessment u/s.17/16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, for AY 2004-05 dated 31.3.2008 in Assessee s own case. Therefore the value of the jewellery would be only ₹ 13,55,462/-. If cash in hand is excluded and the value of jewellery of ₹ 13,55,462/- alone is considered, the net wealth of the Assessee would only be ₹ 13,55,462/- which is well below the limit of ₹ 15 lakhs for filing return of wealth. 8. The learned counsel for the Assessee fairly submitted that the order of assessment u/s.17/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e levied u/s.18(1)( c) of the Act. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the CWT(A). 9. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. The factual background as given by the learned counsel for the assessee given in para 5 to 8 above are found to be correct and in this regard we have perused the order of assessment u/s.17/16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, for AY 2004-05 dated 31.3.2008 in Assessee s own case. We are of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the Assessee concealed particulars of wealth as is the charge sought to be made out by the Revenue. We therefore accept the stand taken by the assessee and hold that in the given facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
