1995 (9) TMI 105 - AT - Wealth-tax

Tribunal Upholds Penalties for Undervaluing Shares: Rule 1D & Explanation 4 Key

The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act on the assessee for undervaluing shares, rejecting the argument of bona ... Assessing Officer, Bona Fide, Gift Tax Act, High Court, Penalty For Concealment, Supreme Court, Wealth Tax Issues Involved:1. Valuation of shares for Wealth-tax purposes.2. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules.3. Imposition of penalties under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act.4. Interpretation of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act.5. Bona fide conduct of the assessee in valuation of shares.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Valuation of Shares for Wealth-tax Purposes:The assessee disclosed the value of shares of two private limited companies for three assessment years, which were significantly lower than the values assessed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee valued the shares based on the report of M/s B.L. Khandelwal & Co., Chartered Accountants, using the yield basis method, relying on Supreme Court decisions in CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia and CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan. However, the Assessing Officer, relying on decisions from the Allahabad High Court and the mandatory application of Rule 1D, assessed the shares at much higher values and initiated penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act.2. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules:The Assessing Officer followed Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, which prescribes a specific method for valuing unquoted equity shares. The officer's stance was supported by decisions from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that Rule 1D was mandatory. The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee, falling under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, was bound to follow Rule 1D for share valuation.3. Imposition of Penalties under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act:The Assessing Officer imposed penalties for all three years under section 18(1)(c) due to the substantial difference between the returned and assessed values of the shares. The penalties were initially canceled by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the issue was a legal dispute over the method of valuation rather than concealment of wealth or submission of inaccurate particulars.4. Interpretation of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act:The Tribunal clarified the distinct applications of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4. Explanation 2 deals with concealment of particulars of assets, allowing exoneration if the explanation is bona fide and all material facts are disclosed. In contrast, Explanation 4 specifically addresses cases where the returned value of an asset is less than 70% of the assessed value, deeming the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars unless they prove the returned value is correct. The Tribunal emphasized that Explanation 4 does not consider the bona fide nature of the explanation, focusing solely on the accuracy of the returned value.5. Bona Fide Conduct of the Assessee in Valuation of Shares:The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct was not bona fide, as they ignored the mandatory Wealth-tax Rules and the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The assessee's reliance on the Supreme Court decisions was deemed misplaced, as those cases did not address the applicability of Wealth-tax Rules. The Tribunal held that the assessee's act of filing returns based on advice from a Chartered Accountant, without adhering to Rule 1D, was not bona fide.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was liable to penalties under section 18(1)(c) read with Explanation 4, as they failed to prove that the returned value of the shares was correct. The Tribunal canceled the order of the CWT (Appeals) and upheld the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer. The appeals filed by the revenue were allowed, reinforcing the mandatory application of Rule 1D and the stringent interpretation of Explanation 4 in cases of significant discrepancies between returned and assessed values.