9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44 and Rs. 58,166 for the first two years and at the figures declared by the assessee for the last three years under consideration. In the meanwhile, the assessment for the year 1976-77 came up for consideration, during the course of which, at the instance of the WTO, the assessee got the jewellery valued. According to the assessee's valuer, the value of the jewellery was Rs. 96,131 for the first two years and Rs. 1,24,702 for the last three years, which the assessee had shown in her returns of wealth for the five assessment years under consideration, which were reopened in the meanwhile. In the assessment proceedings, the WTO accepted the value of the jewellery as declared by the assessee as per the valuer's report. After completion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi Bench 'D' decision in IT Appeal No. 124 (Delhi) of 1977-78 decided on 29-4-1978. In all these appeals in identical circumstances, the three Benches had held that the respective assessees were not liable to penalties under section 18(1)(c), or section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Reliance is also placed on the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Tulsidas Kilachand v. D. R. Chawla [1980] 122 ITR 458 to the effect that a subsequent valuation does not justify the reopening. Further reliance is also placed on the Kerala High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sankarsons Co. [1972] 85 ITR 627 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in case of Addl. CIT v. Karnail Singh V. Kalaran [1974] 94 ITR 505. On behalf of the revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the valuer. In our opinion considering the contents of the Board's circular and letter referred to earlier, which has the force of instructions under section 13 of the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer could not have proceeded to levy the penalty. In fact, this is the consistent view of the Tribunal as referred to earlier. Further, the assessee cannot be accused of gross and wilful neglect within the meaning of Explanation to section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the penalty was wrong and required to be reversed. The penalty sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby vacated." 6. Apart from the aforesaid position on merits, the learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the assessee is eligible to succeed for the cancellation of penalties for the five years on merits as discussed in the earlier paragraphs, the orders imposing penalties suffer from infirmity on these two additional grounds also, viz., that the penalties were levied during the course of the assessment proceedings, which were not properly initiated and secondly, the penalties were levied by the WTO according to the law as prevailing after 1-4-1976, when in fact the proceedings should have been initiated and the penalties should have been levied according to the law prevalent prior to 31-3-1976. The penalties are bad on these counts also. 8. In the result, the penalties are, therefore, hereby cancelled and the appeals are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
