9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , although he was being assessed under the I.T. Act for a very long time, as he was bona fide under the belief that his wealth was below the taxable limit, he did not submit the return of the wealth-tax of the aforesaid years. The assessments for the aforesaid years were by four different orders made on the same date, i.e., 4th August, 1973. While determining the market value of the machinery held by the firm, M/s. Sayeed Bhai and Company, the WTO added 10 per cent. over the book written down value by way of appreciation in the value of assets. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 3,526 for the first year and the same amount for the subsequent three years. The WTO also added certain amount in the wealth of the petitioner out of dharmada acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of waiver of the tax provided by sub-s. (2A) of s. 18. The petitioner also asserted that he was not guilty of the charges mentioned in the letter of the CWT dated February 18, 1975. It, however, appears that the CWT, being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, rejected the application filed on March 6, 1975, on the ground that the petitioner had not made complete disclosure of his wealth. In this view of the matter, the Commissioner found that the petitioner's good faith or bad faith was not relevant as other conditions mentioned in s. 18(2A) had not been satisfied. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d faith and had made full disclosure of his net wealth. In the instant case, it will be seen that the application filed by the petitioner for the waiver of the amount of penalty was rejected by the Commissioner on two grounds, the same being that the petitioner had not shown in the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the appreciation in the cost of the machinery in the assets of Messrs. Habib Oil Industrial Corporation and that he had not disclosed his share in dharmada account maintained in the firm. As mentioned above, the value of the machinery shown by the petitioner in the return filed was enhanced by Rs. 3,526. This was done by the WTO under sub-s. (2) of s. 7 of the Act. In his opinion, the value shown in the return by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money of the petitioner. There is, however, substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Commissioner would have excluded from his consideration the fact of the enhancement of the value of the machinery in the assessment order, he might not have found the petitioner to be guilty of having not made the full disclosure. It is worthy of being noted that the addition made by the WTO on account of the dharmada was of small amounts-in one year the amount liable to be added was found to be only Rs. 10 while in another the amount was Rs. 495. It may, however, also be pointed out that for applying cl. (a) of sub-s. (2A) of s. 18, another ingredient which was necessary to be satisfied was that the petitioner had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
