1981 (7) TMI 55 - HC - Wealth-tax

Court rules against denial of relief for property undervaluation, emphasizes full disclosure requirement

The court held that the Commissioner's denial of relief under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act due to the petitioner's property undervaluation was ... Penalty, Wealth Tax Issues:Challenge to orders passed by the Commissioner, Wealth-tax under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for waiver of penalty due to late filing of returns. Interpretation of 'full disclosure' requirement under section 18(2A) of the Act.Analysis:The petitioner, a wealth-tax assessee, filed late returns for assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 and sought waiver of penalty under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Commissioner rejected the waiver, stating that the petitioner did not make a full disclosure of his net wealth, specifically undervaluing his property. The Commissioner calculated the property's value at Rs. 72,750, while the petitioner disclosed it at Rs. 61,250, leading to the denial of relief under section 18(2A) due to lack of full disclosure.The petitioner argued that the Commissioner misunderstood the law by claiming a lack of full disclosure based on the property valuation discrepancy. The law at the relevant time required disclosure to be in good faith and 'full.' The disclosure must now be 'full and true' under section 18B. Citing the Allahabad High Court decision in Hasan Ahmad Khan v. CWT, the petitioner contended that honest disclosure, even if ultimately inaccurate, satisfies the good faith requirement. The Division Bench in Hasan Ahmad Khan held that full disclosure means honestly revealing all assets and liabilities with estimated values for the Commissioner to consider waiving the penalty.The court emphasized that the key requirement is disclosure, full and in good faith. The term 'disclosure' implies revealing previously hidden information. While the petitioner fully disclosed the property, the valuation discrepancy arose. The petitioner explained the undervaluation by considering market factors for a joint family property. The court noted that differing valuation opinions are common, and denying relief solely for underestimation, even in good faith, renders the provision ineffective. The court found the Commissioner's denial of relief based on underestimation to be a legal error, quashing the orders and remanding the matters for proper consideration.In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of full and honest disclosure for invoking relief under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act. The judgment underscores that while valuation discrepancies may occur, good faith disclosure of assets and liabilities is crucial, and denial of relief based solely on underestimation is legally incorrect.