9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee cannot be charged with the concealment of wealth ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act should not be levied on the assessee because penalty for concealment of income was not levied on him ? 4. Whether a liability to penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act and the liability under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act are not different and whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is as follows : " The matter is simple. There is no dispute on facts. Section 18(2A) application is pending. Limitation for penalty expires on March 31, 1973. That the assessee had not admitted the peak in the original wealth-tax return renders him liable for penalty. The concealment is Rs. 79,348. In the circumstances, I direct that the assessee shall pay by way of penalty under section 18(1)(c) for the assessment year 1966-67 a sum of Rs. 79,348 (rupees seventy nine thousand three hundred and forty-eight only). The Wealth-tax Officer will issue the demand notice and chalan accordingly." We must point out that this order was passed after the assessee had filed a revised wealth-tax return showing his share in the capitalised amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any penalty leviable under the Wealth-tax Act. We are of the opinion that, having regard to the terms of the settlement, it was the intention of the parties that no penalty should be levied under the Wealth-tax Act. We are referring to this aspect of the matter because the wealth for the four successive years, unlike income, which accrues or arises, year after year, will be practically the same subject to any accretion or disposal and if a penalty equivalent to the value of the total wealth is levied, the penalty for the four years will be four times the total wealth itself and such a thing could not have been in the contemplation of the parties. The petitions filed before this court refer to the total wealth declared for four years as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
