9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an individual, citizen of India. For the asst. yr. 1964-65, against disclosed wealth of Rs. 1,27,991, shown in the return filed by the assessee on 22nd Nov., 1971, the WTO assessee the net wealth of Rs. 1,58,525, and the difference mainly arose on account of additions of three items; one was in regard to the difference in the value of an immovable property being an open plot at Nasik between that shown by the assessee, and the one adopted by the WTO, which came to Rs. 12,000. The second was a fixed deposit with Sardar Griha Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 11,000 which the assessee failed to disclose in the return filed by him. The third was a sum of Rs. 8,000 as representing under-statement of cash and which was not disclosed in the return. Following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders are identically framed and further from the fact that though three items have been shown separately with the remark "as per last year", the total figure of net wealth arrived at by him is less by the amount of Rs. 11,000 in each of the later three years. This is also borne out by the subsequent order of the WTO passed under s. 35 of the WT Act rectifying the original assessment by deleting Rs. 11,000 though it did not alter the figure of net wealth originally computed. for these three later years also the WTO referred the case to the IAC of WT, who has levied the penalties in the sum of Rs. 8,000 each for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68 which is only in respect of the item of cash said to be not disclosed by the assessee in the returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money or stridhan money, he had not taken any such attitude, and volunteered inclusion of the amount in his net wealth which attitude does not speak of any attempt to conceal or suppress any item of asset. In the circumstances, it was submitted that on merits there was no justification for holding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of wealth or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof so as to warrant the imposition of penalty. 4. Attacking the orders on legal grounds also, the learned Representative submitted firstly that it is not the provision of the relevant section as it stood at the time of initiation of the proceedings under which the penalty should be imposed, but it is the provisions in force, at the time of commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is ultimately determined and levied by the IAC. The WTO in the asst. yr. 1964-65 considered all the three items including the difference in the value of the immovable property for the purpose of levy of penalty, and this exceeded the sum of Rs. 25,000. 6. After considering the facts in this case, and the contentions of the parties, we hold that the provisions of penalty are not attracted in this case. Out of the three items considered by the WTO for inclusion in the wealth-tax assessment mentioned hereinbefore, the IAC has agreed with the assessee that so far as the difference in the valuation of the immovable property in respect of which addition was made is concerned, it will not attract the provisions as the question of valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide intention or motive could be attributed to this omission, particularly when regard is had to the fact that the tax implication thereof was negligible, and no one in his normal senses would risk an extreme penalty of a minimum of the value of the concealed asset or wealth for a petty incidence of tax. Similarly, there is considerable force in the contention of the assessee that there was hardly any attempt on his part to conceal or suppress the cash amount of Rs. 8,000. From the letter addressed by him to the ITO dt. 27th March, 1972, it appears that the cash balance of Rs. 8,000 was declared by the assessee voluntarily as having been missed through oversight to be included. In the petition addressed to the CIT by the assessee dt. 7th Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction to impose the penalty, we have no hesitation in rejecting this objection because what is material for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the IAC of WT to levy penalty is not he amount of penalty that he ultimately imposes or that is found imposable but is the amount in respect of which the penalty is imposable under cl. (c) of s. 19(1) as determined by the WTO on assessment. If this amount as determined by the WTO exceeds Rs. 25,000, then undoubtedly the IAC of WT has jurisdiction to impose the penalty notwithstanding the fact that ultimately he might find that penalty actually imposable by him is less than that amount. In the instant case, for the asst. yr. 1964-65 when the ITO referred the proceedings to the IAC the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
