9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. At this stage, it would be necessary to tabulate the valuation of the said 1/2 share shown by the assessee and that estimated by the WTO: Asst. Yr. Per assessee . Per WTO . Original Revised 1st 2nd . (1) (2) (3) (4) . Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1970-71 2,52,500 2,78,700 4,03,990 2,73,050 1971-72 2,52,500 2,95,350 4,44,270 2,90,900 1972-73 2,52,500 3,36,600 4,75,300 3,24,100 1974-75 2,52,500 5,00,000 8,14,380 4,60,950 Based on its approved valuer's report dt. 20th March, 1969, the assessee has shown the value of his 1/2 sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(1)(c) of the Act and called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act, for the variation in the value shown by the assessee in its original returns and that shown in the revised returns. 4. On 17th May, 1980, the assessee, inter alia stated as under: "(b) Without prejudice to the above, I deny having concealed particulars of wealth or having furnished inaccurate particulars of wealth. Although, the order and the notice are silent about the matter in respect of which penalty proceedings are initiated, I presume that they have been initiated in connection with the valuation of my property at Varachha road. You will kindly note that the returns of wealth were filed showing the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DVO. It was also highlighted before the CIT (A) that in the second report of the DVO, the valuation of the assessee's share in the property in question was lower than what the assessee had shown in its revised return. It was, therefore, urged that penalty imposed under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act should be cancelled. The CIT (A) cancelled the penalty in the following manner: "5. I find that there is much substance in the above argument. Strictly speaking the value of Rs. 2,52,200 for each of the years under appeal cannot be said to be supported by the valuation report because the valuation report was as for the asst. yr. 1968-69 and the appellant had adopted the same for the subsequent years. The appellant, therefore, cannot claim the advanta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower than what the assessee had declared in the revised returns filed on 8th Oct. 1975. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D. V. Patel Co. vs. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 524 (Guj), the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee had filed revised returns voluntarily before the original assessments were framed on 16th Dec. 1975, no penalty could be imposed under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and we are constrained to observe that much of the time, energy and material could have been saved if the Revenue had applied its mind before deciding to file appeals before the Tribunal. We make this observation as under s. 16A(6) of the Act, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
