9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r after considering the evidence on record valued the property aforesaid assessment years, respectively. The Wealth-tax Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act. Since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 25,000, the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee in his letters dated 8th and 16th April, 1976. According to him, the assessee had concealed his wealth and also furnished inaccurate particulars of his assets and so he imposed penalties of Rs. 34,000, Rs. 39,000, Rs. 44,000 and Rs. 49,000 for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively. The assessee took up the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order dated April 13, 1977, allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee and the orders imposing penalty passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were cancelled. The present petitioner submitted four applications in respect of the said assessment years for drawing up the statement of case and for making reference to this court on questions of law. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sustainable in law as the Appellate Tribunal did not take into consideration the entire evidence, direct and circumstantial, which was taken note of by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner while imposing the penalties in respect of the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 ?" It may be stated that whether the questions sought to be referred are as stated in the order of the Tribunal or are as stated in the 4 reference applications presented before this court are not very material. The whole question as to whether the order of the Tribunal dated April 13, 1977, gives rise to any question of law which may necessitate the making of a reference by the Tribunal or which may require this court to issue a direction to the Tribunal to state the case to this court on any question of law. While rejecting the applications, the Tribunal has expressed an opinion that the orders do not raise any question of law. The finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a which was about 200 yards away and was very uneven in size as is clear from the following dimensions : North : 338 ft. ; West: 288 ft. ; South : 166 ft. ; East: 357 ft. This land was requisitioned by the Collector, Jodhpur, on January 30, 1964, and the possession was also taken over on February 6, 1964. Ultimately, the land was acquired by the Government, vide Gazette Notification dated September 8, 1971, and the acquisition order was passed by the Collector, Jodhpur, on January 18, 1972, and the compensation was paid to the assessee on April 7, 1972. Thus the date of notification and the date of acquisition order both fell outside the valuation dates of the years under consideration. The assessee explained in detail that at the relevant valuation dates, the value of the land could not be more than the value disclosed in the return. Even originally the Wealth-tax Officer accepted the value of the plot in question as returned by the assessee. Later on, the Wealth-tax Officer reopened the assessment under section 17 of the Act and enhanced the value of the plot in question. In appeal, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax accepted the value of the land as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on record which would go to show that the assessee knowingly and deliberately did not disclose the value of the plot as assessed. It would appear from the order of the Tribunal that the approach of the Tribunal was correct and it rightly placed the burden initially on the assessee and thereafter considered that it has been proved by the assessee that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, recorded a finding that it was proved that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning the assessed value of the plot in question. It cannot be said that while recording such finding, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration any material on record whereby the finding may be considered to be vitiated. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record and after assessing the same, recorded such a finding. It was not necessary for the Tribunal to make reference to each material and all relevant material have been taken note of by the Tribunal. Thus a perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has allowed the four appeals after recordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y actual concealment or manipulation indulged in by the, assessee. The assessee's statement that it agrees to an addition of Rs, 6,000 by way of enhancement of gross profit, in the circumstances and background of the case, could not be equated with a categorical acceptance of concealment of income on its part and set aside the order of penalty The Tribunal refused to make a reference to the High Court on the ground that the finding arrived at by it was only a finding of fact. On the application of the Commissioner under section 256(2) of the Act : Held, that the Tribunal was right in holding that the question whether there was any concealment of income and whether there was any fraud or gross or wilful neglect in the filing of the proper return of its income on the part of the assessee was essentially a question of fact and from the finding of the Tribunal it could not be said that the Tribunal was not mindful of the Explanation to section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee and on the basis of that finding, the penalty was cancelled. It was purely a finding of fact and no quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
