9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by the WTO Distt 1(1) Patiala, hereinafter referred as the WTO under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, hereinafter referred as the Act, for each of the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. 2. Two common contentions are that legally the WTO wrongly assumed jurisdiction to impose the levy of penalties and secondly that on merit there was no concealment of asset by the assessee which could attract the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in the case of the firm was, however, issued. Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessee's individual case were initiated but came to be drooped by the Assessing Officer himself vide order dt. 30th Aug., 1969. It may be noted here that the said addition of Rs. 20,940 made in the firm's case was not challenged in appeal. For each of the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed. The return of wealth-tax for the asst. yr. 1968-69 was filed on 18th Sept., 1968 showing net wealth of Rs. 97,352 and the return for 1969-70 was filed on 30th Sept., 1970 showing taxable wealth at Rs. 88,132. The WTO however, computed taxable wealth at Rs. 1,07,352 and at Rs. 98,130 respectively for the years under appeal. No appeal was filed against the additions. 4. For the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions were made and accepted, the assessee was bound to show the assets or their dissipation. 5. After hearing the parties we are of the view that on the peculiar circumstances of the case thought the assessee was accepting the assessment. It would be in the realm of imagination to hold that for all these years the assessee was holding unaccounted for cash undisclosed. Coming to the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any assets other than those disclosed in existence on the valuation dates. The said judgment fits like gloves to the case before us. In view of the categorical submission made for the assessee that no benefits of intangible additions have been or intended to be taken, it is not a fit case where penalty proceedings should have even been initiated, much less any justification for levy of the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
