9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closed 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 consquence of the difference in the values of these two assets there was a wide gap between the net wealth as declared and as assessed as detailed below. Asst. yr. 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 6,29143 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 s.18 clearly Stated that the difference exceeding 25 percent was considered to be deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars. Therefore there was no fraud by her. In so far as she had engaged a Chartered Accounts to represent her case which itself showed a diligence there was no gross or wilful neglect. Then again according to the ld., counsel she had not given the valuations of either properly 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 CWT(A) it was clear that there was only a bonafide 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 valuations was more than the cost shown by the assessee. In the circumstances, the CWT(A) 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 returns filed by the assessee the CWT (A) proceeded to hold following the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustries P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652 (P H). 5. On behalf of the assessee the ld. 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 ld. Counsel, this dictum was laid down by the ld. Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan vs CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 198 : (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC). Then he proceeded to point out that the returns in this case were filed on the following dates: Asst. yr. Date of filing at the return 1969-70 27-6-1969 1970-71 13-9-1970 1971-72 19-6-71 1972-73 27-7-1972 1973-74 9-8-1973 1974-75 13-3-1974 According to the ld. 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 eligibility of the assessee to penalties. He pointed out that the relevant provision of s.18 of the WT Act 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 ..... vs. Tejpal Oswal (1978) 112 ITR 429(P H) where the ld. 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 s. 18(1)(c)of the WT Act, 1957, the Tribunal had not made any mistake. 6. The ld. departmental representative, on rejoinder, submitted that the assessee had atleast 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 s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act. 7. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions on either side. The fact is that the assessee owned two assets on each of the six valuation dates, a share as a co-owner in the Harilela house an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
