9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her husband who was also an assessee. The plot was disclosed in the return filed by her husband under section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act. When pointed out that she too had a share in the plot, she added the value of her share in her return. She was then asked to explain this omission and also to show cause why penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Act be not imposed on her for concealment of the particulars of her wealth. In answer, the assessee stated that the revised return was voluntarily filed and the omission was bona fide. Her explanation had been that since the plot was purchased jointly in the names of her husband and herself and since her husband had included the plot in his return, she did not include it in her return, although the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... call for a reference from the Tribunal in terms stated above. At the hearing, a question was raised and a contention had been advanced that the application before this court was barred by time. It was not disputed that, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, the application should be filed before this court against an order refusing to make reference, within 90 days from the date the assessee is served with the notice refusing to make a reference. The order in question was served first upon the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal, although the party before the Tribunal was the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jabalpur. The affidavit sworn by the applicant is that this order was received by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jabalpur, on July 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, seeking to upset that conclusion. In the present case also, although under the Wealth-tax Act, the finding of the Tribunal, as we have shown above, is that the disclosure and the revised return were voluntary, the omission to mention the value of her share in the plot was bona fide, and the return was revised on immediate disclosure of the fact to her. The inference thus is that there has been no mens rea on her part in omitting to include such property in her return originally. That being so, no case has been made out for a reference to the High Court under section 27 of the Wealth -tax Act. Shri Rawat, learned counsel for the Department, however, relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
