9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate also in the assessment order),. This position was not controverted by the learned Departmental representative. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, as per the assessee's counsel, the return was filed on 7th June, 1974 and the WTO there also has wrongly given the date in the assessment order as 1st July,1974 and the same wrong date has been noted down by the IAC. in his penalty order. The wealth shown was Rs. 3,89,240 before the statutory deduction of Rs. 1 1/2 lakhs and at Rs. 2,39,240 after that deduction, as is apparent from the computation of wealth included in the assessee's paper-book. For both the assessment year the assessee had applied a rate of Rs. 6,000 per acre for a small part of the land and a rate of Rs. 16,000 for the bigger part of the land. The total land shown for the asst. yr. 1973-74 measured 20 Acres 4 Kanals and for asst. yr. 1974-75,it measured about 17 Acres 4 Kanals. The WTO computed the value of the assessee's land by valuing 16 Acres of Chahi land at the rate of Rs. 45,000 per acre and 5 1/2 acres of Barani land at the rate of Rs. 22,000 per acre for the first assessment year and for the second assessment year, he applied a rate of Rs. 60,000 per acre to 13 1/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere filed on the same date, i.e. 19th July, 1973 and the assessee had increased the valuation shown for the asst. yr. 1970-71 of Rs. 2.41 lacs by Rs. 10,000,for the asst. yr. 1971-72 by Rs. 16,000,for the asst. yr. 1972-73 and Rs. 46,000 and for the asst. yr. 1973-74. Further it was pointed out that the assessment for the years 1970-71 to 1972-73 were made on 22nd March,1974 on agreed basis on the total wealth before statutory deduction of Rs. 1 1/2 lakhs at Rs. 2.82 lakhs, Rs. 2.82 lakhs, and 3.17 lakhs as against the corresponding figures of returned wealth of 2.41 lakhs, Rs. 2.51 lakhs and Rs. 2.57 lakhs. It was submitted that the assessee had filed the returns for the four assessment year at the same time and the valuation shown for the asst. yr. 1973-74 was higher by Rs. 30,000 in comparison with the asst. yr. 1972-73 and it was not far removed even from the figure of total wealth computed at Rs. 3,17,000 before statutory deduction of Rs. 1 1/2 lakhs by the WTO for that assessment year. It was pointed out that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had made the full disclosure about his agricultural assets and had taken the assistance of his counsels and filed the returns on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alues simply with a view to avoiding the stringent penalty proceedings under the Act. He was assured by the learned WTO that no penalty proceedings are to follow otherwise there was no logic to agree to the rates of Rs. 60,000 per acre an amount which was to come in our hands for a part of the land after a lapse of 2 1/2 years and at the same time depriving us of the possession of the land". It was submitted that the IAC neither considered these submissions in his penalty orders nor called upon the assessee to substantiate his submissions. It was submitted that if the IAC was not satisfied with what was stated by the assessee, he should have asked the assessee to substantiate his claims and afforded him the necessary opportunity. It was also pointed out with the help of order-sheet entries that it was the assessee's authorised representative who informed the WTO. about the sale of land and, therefore, all the cards were placed before the WTO. at the time of assessment. A copy of the order-sheet entries was placed at page 7 of the assessee's paper book. It was contended that for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the assessee had disclosed much higher wealth at Rs. 3,89,240 before the statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how and prove that an admission made by him previously was, in fact, not correct and true and that it was incumbent upon the IAC to have afforded the assessee full opportunity to prove his assertions. The High Court further observed that the IAC could not solely impose the penalty on the basis of the fact that the amounts were surrendered by the assessee at the time of the assessment and that even treating the surrender as an admission of the concealment of the undisclosed income, the IAC could not deny to the assessee its right to prove that the fact of surrender was no such admission and that the so called admission was, in fact wrong and the surrender was made solely to avoid botheration as stated by the assessee. It was further observed that the surrender of the assessee could have been for more than one reason in spite of the fact that it was not his income and that fact alone could not be the basis of imposing penalty. The principles of natural justice also required that the IAC went into the assessee's contention about the circumstances of the admission and should have decided them independently. This omission on the part of the IAC clearly vitiates the levy of two penalties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings to the IAC dt. 15th Feb., 1976 was factually incorrect, as no proceedings for the assessment or initiation of penalty proceedings had taken place before that WTO and it was his predecessor who had taken the necessary action. It was contended that the notice of reference was invalid. It was contended by the Revenue that the reference was not invalid due to the fact that the successor ITO had issued the notice. (d) It was contended by the assessee's counsel that the IAC had mixed the charge of penalty and he had issued the penalty show cause notice dt. 15th Jan.,1977 to the assessee only in respect of the charge of concealing the particulars of wealth and he had not shown that he was going to invoke Expln. 1 in s. 18 and shift the burden to the assessee. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that the WTO. himself in the assessment orders had referred to the applicability of the Explanation and the assessee was fully aware of that position and had, in fact, dealt with it in paras 10 11 of his written explanation filed before the IAC. (e)It was contended on the basis of observations of the Commentator, Shri A.C. Sampath Iyengar in his book on wealth-tax, 4th Edition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
