9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 1970-71 61,188 1971-72 1,37,291 1972-73 1,82,725 1973-74 1,32,557 1974-75 2,70,844 3. The above income was estimated under s. 132(5) of the Act. The assessee accepted the said estimate for all assessment years except for asst. yr. 1975-76. The assessee filed returns for asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1974-75 in which he estimated the income as above. The assessments were made for those years on agreed basis as above. As far as asst. yr. 1975-76 was concerned, the assessee estimated the income at Rs. 3,50,000 and filed return of said income on 8th Sept., 1976. Ultimately the assessment for asst. yr. 1975-76 was finalised at Rs. 5,06,170. This assessment became final as the assessee did not file any appeal. 4. For asst. yr. 1975-76 the ITO levied penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. However, that penalty was cancelled by the CIT(A) by order dt. 31st March, 1983. This order is at page 59 of the paper book. 5. The assessee filed wealth-tax returns for asst.yrs. 1970-71 to 1975-76 under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. The WTO did not accept the net wealth declared by the assessee and assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75-76 Value of immovable property 1,41,746 1,92,501 . . —33,500* . . 1,59,001 Value of movable property 24,930 84,645 . 1,65,976 2,43,646 *Exempted It would thus be seen that in the course of assessment proceedings the assessee, in the revised statements of wealth, valued the net wealth for these two years at Rs. 1,65,976 and Rs. 2,43,646 as against the value declared in the original returns at Rs. 1,08,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively. After giving effect to the order of the AAC, who had allowed deduction of income-tax liabilities, the wealth that was ultimately assessed by the ITO for these two years came to Rs. 1,72,902 and Rs. 3,48,538 respectively. Thus the difference in the net wealth between the assessed wealth and the wealth mentioned in the revised statements for these two years was Rs. 6,926 and Rs. 94,892 respectively. 8. In reply to show cause notice the assessee explained that he had submitted the wealth-tax returns on the basis of estimate as the books of accounts were not complete. It was submitted that the difference between the wealth estimated by the WTO and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CIT(A). On the facts of the case the penalty should not have been levied. 12. The submission on behalf of the Department, on the other hand, was that the difference between the assessed income and the returned income was more than 25% and that the explanation of the assessee was not satisfactory. It was pointed out that the assessee did not disclose items of wealth and mentioned only the estimated value of wealth and that in the course of assessment when the details were sought, the assessee disclosed higher value of wealth. Considering the circumstances the penalty was rightly levied. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and facts on record. It has been expressly mentioned in the appellate order for asst. yr. 1975-76 arising out of imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 that it had been mentioned by the ITO in his report dt. 11th Aug., 1982 that the wealth-tax assessments were completed on the basis of income assessed from year to year in the absence of other complete details. It is established that after the incomplete books and documents were seized the assessee and the Departmental officers sat together in order to ascertain the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimated the wealth on the basis of incomplete account books and other documents which were in the custody of the Department. The WTO also estimated the value on the basis of those very documents. It is thus a case of difference in estimation between the assessee and the Department on the basis of the very same documents which were in possession of the Department from the date prior to the date on which the returns were filed. Committing of mistake by the assessee in estimating the wealth on the basis of documents which were in custody of the Department, could not be said to be unnatural. Concealment of wealth implies conscious hiding or conscious attempt to keep the Department ignorant in respect of certain items of wealth. In the present case such an act cannot be attributed to the assessee. As already stated, all the relevant documents on the basis of which wealth was to be estimated were in the custody of the Department. It was a matter of mere calculation from those very documents. If the assessee committed mistake in that calculation it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed the wealth. All material facts were in the knowledge of the Department because of the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property after deducting the value of exempted property would be Rs. 1,59,000 and the value of movable property would be Rs. 84,645 and value of net wealth would be Rs. 2,43,646. After giving effect to the appellate order the wealth has been assessed at Rs. 3,48,538. Thus the difference in the assessed wealth and in the revised estimate filed by the assessee comes to Rs. 94,892. The reasons given for asst. yr. 1974-75 would apply for asst. yr. 1975-76. Those reasons need not be repeated. The assessee as well as the WTO have adopted methods as were applied for the other years. As far as asst. yr. 1975-76 was concerned, according to the WTO, the assessee should have taken into account the items of Rs. 11,037, Rs. 2,890 and Rs. 2,495 making in all Rs. 16,422 which represented cash balances as per cash book of Liberty Fertilizers, cash book of National Fertilizers and cash book of Commercial Traders. The WTO also observed that the assessee should have taken into account the amount of Rs. 26,760 regarding payment to G.I.D.C., whereas the assessee had taken into account the amount of Rs. 16,100. He also observed that the value of one of the properties should have been estimated higher b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
