9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th-tax Officer under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act?" Standing counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt has appeared for the applicant Revenue, whereas nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee, though the respondent-assessee has been duly served with the notice of this court. The facts giving rise to this reference, in a nutshell, are as under: The assessee filed his wealth-tax return showing the value of his property named Geeta Talkies as Rs. 3,36,485. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Wealth-tax Officer asked the assessee to get the said property valued by an approved valuer and, therefore, the assessee got the said property valued by an approved valuer. Before the assessment was completed, the assessee filed a revise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said circumstances, the reference has been made to this court. Learned standing counsel Ms. Bhatt appearing for the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal committed an error while upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). According to learned counsel, in the instant case, the assessee did not reveal the correct value of the property in the original return. It has been submitted by her that the assessee had valued the said property at Rs. 3,36,485. The Wealth-tax Officer was not satisfied with the valuation and, therefore, he asked the assessee to get the property valued by an approved valuer. In pursuance of the said direction given by the Wealth-tax Officer, the assessee got the property valued by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have also considered the facts and the circumstances in which the reference has been made to this court. In our opinion, the Tribunal was not in error when it confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). It is pertinent to note that the assessee had filed the revised return within the prescribed time-limit. The said revised return was filed before the assessment had been completed. Upon perusal of section 15 of the Act, it is very clear that it is open to the assessee to file a revised return within the time-limit prescribed by the said section. It is not in dispute that before the assessment had been completed, the assessee had filed his revised return for both the years stating the correct valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the assessee had a mala fide intention. Whether the assessee is having mala fide intention is a question of fact. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has come to a conclusion that the assessee had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars and the said finding has been confirmed by the Tribunal. In the instant case, we, therefore, cannot presume that the assessee had a mala fide intention to furnish inaccurate particulars. As mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence and as both the appellate authorities have arrived at a finding that the assessee had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of the asset in question, we would not like to come to a different conclusion with regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
