9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For determination of this issue the relevant facts are as under. 2. The original assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was completed vide order dt. 20th March, 1975 on net wealth of Rs. 2,03,850. Similarly for the asst. yr. 1975-76, original assessment had been completed on 22nd December, 1975 on a net wealth of Rs. 2,05,000. However, on 11th October, 1977, the assessee suo motu filed fresh returns for each of the assessment years declaring net wealth of Rs. 2,14,844 and Rs. 2,10,494 respectively. The WTO did not take any notice of these returns. He issued notice u/s 17 of the WT Act for each of the assessment years under appeal and served it upon the assessee on 25th Jan, 1978. In response to notices u/s 17, the assessee filed the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalties on 27th March, 1981. 4. In appeal the AAC has held that to the extent the assessee had disclosed the value of these assets in the returns himself, there is no concealment. But the difference in the value taken in the assessment regarding the capital of Rs. 2,932 for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and of Rs. 3,672 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 was the concealed net wealth. The penalties for these two amounts for the respective years were therefore sustained. 5. After hearing both the sides and after careful considerations of the facts of the case we are of the opinions that there is no justification for sustaining any penalty for the years under appeal. The assessee prior to the asst. yr. 1974-75 was not borne on the record of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm. Therefore, the explanation given by the assessee on the face of its is acceptable on facts. This should have been accepted with the background that it was the assessee who brought to the notice of the WTO by his voluntarily act of filing fresh returns on 11th October, 1977 for each of the assessment years of under appeal that certain items of net wealth had not been taxed due to his mistake which of course he claimed to be bona fide. We do not find any evidence that can question the bona fides of the assessee on the facts of the case. Therefore there could not be any question of concealment of any amount on the part of the assessee. The penalties are without justification. The AAC was not justified in sustaining a part thereof. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
