9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dispute that in the case on hand, the assessee did not file the return. In the first instance, notice was issued u/s 17(1) and only thereafter, the return was filed. This, according to the assessee, was because of their bona fide belief that the property would not fall within the definition of the term 'asset' as defined under Section 2(ea)(1). If at all the AO imposes penalty under Section 18(1)(c), by referring to Explanation 3, the AO should have rendered a finding that there was no reasonable cause shown by the assessee so as to invoke the deeming provision. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there was no such finding by the CIT(A). We also find that there was no such specific finding rendered by the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act on the ground that the CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to concealment of particulars that have been detected by the Department to levy penalty, when the Statute itself deems non filing of return in time as concealment of income ? And iii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, when the fact remains that but for the wealth tax assessment proceedings, the assessee would have escaped from payment of wealth tax? 4. The short issue, which falls for consideration in these appeals, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal for allowing the assessee's appeal. 7. The Tribunal, on going through the income tax assessment orders, the wealth tax assessment orders and the details and statements filed by the assessee, pointed out that it was not the case of the Department that there was a search or survey either under the Income Tax Act or under the Wealth Tax Act nor there was a seizure of any incriminating materials, based on which, the assessments were completed and the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal further pointed out that in view of the amendment to the Statute with effect from 01.4.1997, the term 'commercial building' was also included in the definition of the term 'asset' as defined under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng understanding of law by the assessee or because of his admission or on his misapprehension. With these reasonings, the penalty was vacated. 9. We also find that though the CIT(A) referred to the said decision relied upon by the assessee, he did not deal with the effect of the said decision, which, in our mind, would assist the case of the assessee before us. The CIT(A) proceeded to affirm the orders passed by the Assessing Officer levying penalty by referring to the amendment to the Statute, which came into force with effect from 01.4.1997. To be noted that the assessments under consideration are for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the assessee's specific case was that they were under the bona fide bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. This, according to the assessee, was because of their bona fide belief that the property would not fall within the definition of the term 'asset' as defined under Section 2(ea)(1) of the Act. If at all the Assessing Officer imposes penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act, by referring to Explanation 3, the Assessing Officer should have rendered a finding that there was no reasonable cause shown by the assessee so as to invoke the deeming provision. 12. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there was no such finding by the CIT(A). We also find that there was no such specific finding rendered by the Assessing Officer as well. Thus, in the absence of any proof to show that there was an attempt on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
