9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings were initiated and finalized u/s. 17 in AY. 2005-06 and AY. 2006-07, no penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) was levied by the AO. Thus, the reopening u/s. 17 has no relevance for levy of penalty. As the explanation was bonafide, this being first year of wealth tax in her case, we are of the opinion that the facts do not warrant penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - W.T.A. No. 82/HYD/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2018 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member And Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri K. C. Devdas, AR For the Revenue : Shri H. Phani Raju, DR ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the fact regarding possession of jewellery of ₹ 34,72,100/- by the assessee/appellant had already came before AO and assessee had no alternative but to disclose it. 3. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessment was reopened on the reason of Satyam scam and nowhere in the documents seized or details available, the wealth of assessee was stated. He referred to the satisfaction recorded to indicate that the AO was not aware about the wealth of assessee. It was the submission that assessee got married during the year under consideration and her wealth was only jewellery gifted to her at the time of marriage by her mother-in-law and others. When the return of wealth was filed, assessee was not aware that the jewellery received as gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evied by the AO. Thus, the reopening u/s. 17 has no relevance for levy of penalty. As the explanation was bonafide, this being first year of wealth tax in her case, we are of the opinion that the facts do not warrant penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. 6. The facts in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra) are that the AO impounded various documents u/s. 133A and thereafter, assessee had disclosed revised income. On those facts, the penalty was confirmed. Here in this case, there is no iota of evidence with AO about the wealth of assessee, leave alone undisclosed. The facts of the case being different, the principles in that case does not apply. 7. In the result, penalty levied is cancelled and appeal of assessee is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
