9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ["WT Act" in short]. 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are found to have been filed late by seven days before the Tribunal. By referring to the affidavits filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since there is lull in the business of the assessee, there is no personnel exist except office-boy cum watchman incharge, who has received the impugned orders from the office of the ld. CIT(A), but not handed over to the management of the assessee company by oversight and thereby the assessee could not able to prefer its appeals in time bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluded was only any house for residential/commercial purpose, which forms stock-in-trade or which the assessee has occupied for the purpose of business or profession carried on by it. Thus the building which was used for commercial purpose should have been either stock in trade or must have been occupied for the business carried on by the assessee during the relevant previous year. In the assessee's case, it was claimed that the properties (commercial complexes) were used in the business of letting them out for rent. Even if the assessee was assumed to be in the business of letting properties for rent, still they do not come within the scope of the exception provided as above as the assessee has not occupied the commercial properties ( let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished all details that had been called for in connection with the proceedings thereof and the same have been true and correct and hence no need for any action to be taken for the reasons of the details furnished being untrue or inaccurate or anything that might amount to concealment of facts. The assessee further submitted before the Assessing Officer that no new facts have come up in the course of all the proceedings so far and the differences were purely technical and difference in matter of contentions and belief and pleaded to drop the penalty proceedings. 3.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee cannot take shelter from being exigible to penalty by simply saying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment years. By reiterating the submissions as made before the lower authorities, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has furnished all details and complete information during the course of income tax assessment proceedings as well as wealth tax assessment proceedings and no new facts have unearthed by the Department having concealed any particulars leading to levy of penalty. The assessee was under bonafide belief that the house properties, stated to have been let out, are not come under the definition of asset as per provisions of section 2(ea)(1) of the WT Act and therefore, he prayed that the penalty levied under section 16(1)(c) of the WT Act should be deleted. On the other hand, the ld. DR suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
