9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) and the cited order of the Pune Tribunal was quite appropriate, reasonable and justified. No contrary judgment has been placed on record by the assessee. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of lower authorities in any manner. Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. - W.T.A. Nos. 09 to 12/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2018 - Shri Mahavir Singh, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM Assessee by : None Revenue by : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ( Accountant Member ) 1. The captioned appeals by assessee from Assessment Years [AY] 2004-05 to 2007-08 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11 [CWT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Penalty proceedings subsist, where the Return of Wealth was filed on 25/03/2010, voluntarily, before issue of Notice u/s.16(2) on 21.12.2010 and much before the issue of notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 18(1)(C) on 30/12/2010 or 18/05/2011, and the same Ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t u/s 16(3) read with Section 17 on 30/12/2010. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 18(1)(c) were initiated and the assessee has been saddled with a penalty of ₹ 11,567/- by invoking Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) vide penalty order dated 29/06/2011. The same upon, further appeal, has been confirmed by Ld. CWT(A) by placing reliance on the order of Pune Tribunal rendered in Ranka Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. [WTA NO. 12/2015 dated 29/05/2016]. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. DR has placed reliance on the stand of lower authorities. 4. We have carefully perused the material on record and appreciated the applicable legal position. We find that the assessee in Ground Nos. 3 4 has contested the order qua q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action on the part of the revenue. Hence, the reliance of the revenue on Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) and the cited order of the Pune Tribunal was quite appropriate, reasonable and justified. No contrary judgment has been placed on record by the assessee. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of lower authorities in any manner. Resultantly, the assessee s appeal stands dismissed. 5. The assessee, in similar manner, has been saddled with penalties of ₹ 36,141, ₹ 19,693/- ₹ 1,25,700/- for AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 2007-08 respectively. Further, all the appeals have been disposed-off by Ld. first appellate authority by common order and the assessee, before us, has raised identical worded grounds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
