9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty as per the departmental Valuation Officer's report under section 16A of the Act. Likewise, in respect of the flat in the Anita Apartments, the assessee disclosed the value of the flat at Rs. 60,000 for each of the years whereas the WTO valued this flat at Rs. 1,32,000 for the first two years and at Rs. 1,23,000 for the remaining four years under consideration. In consequence of the difference in the values of these two assets, there was a wide gap between the net wealth as declared and assessed as detailed below. Assessment year Declared wealth Assessed wealth Rs. Rs. 1969-70 3,03,526 6,16,238 1970-71 3,55,486 6,75,122 1971-72 4,88,848 6,95,300 1972-73 4,48,421 5,77,097 1973-74 3,20,500 6,29,143 1974-75 3,37,000 6,39,674 The assessee did not appeal against these assessments. When called upon to show cause why no penalty should be levied for the concealment of wealth, the assessee explained that there was no concealment of wealth. The difference between the declared and assessed wealth arose on account of the difference in the valuation of the two immovable properties. According to the WTO, proviso to section 18 clearly stated that the difference exceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor had she furnished any inaccurate particulars. Therefore, there was no fraud by her. Insofar as she had engaged a chartered accountant to represent her case, which itself showed a diligence, there was no gross or wilful neglect. Then again, according to the learned counsel, she had not given the valuation of either property at an arbitrary figure but only the cost has been taken in respect of the first property and a valuation by a registered valuer in respect of the second property. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), it was clear that there was only a bona fide difference of opinion, which could not be considered as concealment of any wealth by any stretch of imagination. That such a difference of opinion, could arise unintentionally was clear from the fact that the valuation of the first property by the registered valuer was less than the cost disclosed by the assessee and the second property's valuation was more than the cost shown by the assessee. In the circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the WTO that the assessee had deliberately, knowingly and wilfully undervalued the properties owned by her. Since there was no element of deliberateness in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onnection, he also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652 (FB). 5. On behalf of the assessee, the learned counsel proceeded to point out that the law to be applied for the levy of penalty was the law on the dates on which the offence of concealment was alleged to have been committed by the assessee. According to the learned counsel, this dictum was laid down by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1. Then he proceeded to point out that the returns in this case were filed on the following dates : Assessment year Date of filing of the return 1969-70 27-6-1969 1970-71 13-9-1970 1971-72 19-6-1971 1972-73 27-7-1972 1973-74 9-8-1973 1974-75 13-3-1974 According to the learned counsel, if at all there was any concealment, the concealment was committed by the assessee on the aforesaid dates. Therefore, we have to ascertain the law as on these dates for considering the exigibility of the assessee to penalties. He pointed out that the relevant provision of section 18, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment's case. Further, on this question, he referred to another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of CWT v. Tej Pal Oswal [1978] 112 ITR 429 where the learned Judges of that High Court held that where penalty was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal on the finding that there was a bona fide difference of opinion between the assessee and the WTO on the question of valuation of shares and that the assessee had discharged the burden laid on him by section 18(1)(c) the Tribunal had not made any mistake. 6. The learned departmental representative, on rejoinder, submitted that the assessee had at least in respect of the first property, viz., the Harilela House, mechanically reproduced the value of the property as recorded in the books of account in the returns of wealth. The assessee had not discharged the onus of getting the property valued before submitting the returns of wealth. Therefore, even according to the law, as pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the assessee was guilty of the misconduct referred to in section 18(1)(c). 7. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions on either side. The fact is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
