9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Petitioner : Shri Suhas Bora For the Respondent : Shri Achal Sharma ORDER Per R. K. Panda, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15-10-2015 of the CIT(A)-11, Pune relating to Assessment Years 2003-04. 2. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CWT(A) in upholding the penalty of ₹ 1,01,721/- levied by the AO u/s.18(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its return of wealth declaring total wealth of ₹ 1,01,72,101/- on 29-03-2006. In this case a search action u/s.132 of the I.T. Act in the Ranka group of cases was conducted on 24-10-2002 during which cash of ₹ 90,00,000/- was found and was admitted by the assessee as unaccounted cash. The AO issued a notice u/s.17 on 10-11-2006 asking the assessee to file the return of wealth on valuation date 31-03-2003 pertaining to A.Y.2003-04. In response to the said notice the assessee vide letter dated 20-07-2007 requested the AO to treat the return of wealth filed on 29-03-2006 vide Acknowledgement No.174 as return filed in response to notice u/s.17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 90 lakhs as un disclosed income. Therefore I have reason to believe that cash of ₹ 90 lakhs has escaped assessment for A. Y.2003- 04 6. Thus it is clear that the notice u/s 17 had not been issued to 'regularise' the belated return of the appellant, rather I would say that the appellant had filed the belated return only after detection of the unaccounted cash. Therefore I hold that the AO has rightly levied the penalty. 7. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Shanti B Raheja. However I find that the facts of that case were different from the appellant's case. In the case of Shanti Raheja there is no mention of detection of unaccounted wealth during the search action. Following submissions were considered by the honorable Tribunal while cancelling the penalty in the case of Shanti Raheja: 4.2 Before AO, it was submitted that the only assessable items of the wealth are jewellery and motor cars. Due to lack of awareness of wealth tax provisions attributable to a women the assessee filed wealth tax return voluntarily on 19/1/2011, i.e. before receipt of any notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was a deliberate act of concealment of income and consequentially concealment of wealth. Thus the facts of the appellant s case are entirely different from those before the Honourable Mumbai Tribunal. 10. To conclude the levy of penalty by the AO is confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the return of wealth for A.Y. 2003-04 was voluntarily filed on 29-03-2006 declaring total wealth of ₹ 1,01,72,101/-. The notice u/s.17 was issued on 10-11-2006 to which the assessee had replied that the return of wealth submitted on 29-03-2006 be treated as return in response to notice u/s.17 of the Wealth Tax Act. Further, the AO completed the Wealth Tax assessment on a total wealth of ₹ 1,01,72,101/- which was declared in the return filed on 29-03- 2006. Merely because the return was filed belatedly, it cannot be said that the facts have not been disclosed. He submitted that the AO and the CWT(A) have wrongly invoked the provisions of Explanation 3 to section 18(1)(c) which is incorrect. Relying on the following de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. So far as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in view of the various decisions relied on by him including the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sheikh Hassan Hotels (Supra) penalty is not leviable is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same is not correct. We have gone through the decision and find that the Hon ble High Court while upholding the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act has observed as under : From the facts, it is clear that the penalty was imposed on the assessees because they were charged with concealment of income. However, the Tribunal found that there was no concealment of income within the meaning of the Act, since the assessees had disclosed all the details in the returns filed prior to receipt of notice under s. 148 of the Act. The returns, appear to have been filed late and the delay has been admittedly condoned by the AO. Admittedly, the assessees have also filed the balance sheet in which the discrepancies appear. The learned counsel referred to Expln. 1 to s. 271 reproduced above and submitted that the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
