9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the assessee against the order of the CWT(A) XX, Mumbai dated 13-7-1998. It relates to the assessment year 1990-91. 2. The assessee is the owner of the land at Currimbhoy Road, Pune. On the valuation report dated 12-11-1986, the assessee declared the value of the said land at ₹ 21,97,000. This was the value even as on Diwali 1984. During the course of assessment proceedings, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and levied the maximum penalty. On appeal to the CWT(A) it was confirmed to the extent of ₹ 52,678 which was the maximum penalty instead of ₹ 1,00,000 levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 lacs. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer has estimated the value with the view to showing that the returned value is less than 70 per cent of the assessed value, so that explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) can be invoked. There is no other material or basis taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer to arrive at the figure of ₹ 40 lacs. On the other hand, the learned D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant particulars and there is no concealment on the part of the assessee or furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of facts is to be accepted as correct. The learned AR s submission that the Assessing Officer deliberately raised the value of the property to ₹ 40 lacs so that the case is brought out within the mischief of explanation 4 of section 18(1)(c) seems to be a well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
