1989 (1) TMI 81 - HC - Wealth-tax

High Court rules in favor of assessee on Wealth-tax Act penalty case

The High Court of Madras, in a case concerning the interpretation of section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, ruled in favor of the assessee for the ... Penalty, Wealth Tax Issues:1. Interpretation of section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. Determination of whether the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of wealth.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Madras, delivered by Judge Ratnam, pertains to a reference under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The issues referred for opinion were whether section 18(1)(c) of the Act applies to the assessee's case for the assessment year 1973-74 and whether the Tribunal's finding on the accuracy of particulars of wealth by the assessee is reasonable. The assessee, an individual, filed a return admitting a net wealth of Rs. 97,345 for the relevant assessment year, including two immovable properties. One of the properties was subsequently sold for Rs. 70,000, leading to penalty proceedings due to the variance in the declared value. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000, contending that section 18(1)(c) applied. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the assessee did not deliberately furnish inaccurate particulars.The main argument for the Revenue was that the assessee's failure to disclose the revised property value after entering into a sale agreement indicated concealment. Conversely, the assessee argued that disclosing the property itself was sufficient and that the value did not equate to particulars. The court noted that the property's value was based on a 1968 valuation, which was accepted in previous years. The agreement for sale was entered into after the return filing, and the revised return did not retroactively alter the property's value. Therefore, the court held that the assessee did not conceal or inaccurately furnish particulars of assets, as the value in the agreement could not be attributed to the valuation date. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and awarding costs.