https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62817 Concealment penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act was not justified where the assessee returned immovable property values supported by approved valuer certificates and those valuations had been accepted in earlier years. A higher assessment value, by itself, did not prove fraud, gross neglect, or wilful neglect. The CBDT circular was treated as confirming that penalty is not attracted when relevant particulars are correctly furnished and the declared value is based on an approved valuer's report, even if the assessment adopts a higher figure. The underlying principle is that a valuation variance may shift the onus in quantum proceedings, but failure on quantum alone does not establish concealment. en-us Mon, 29 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:51:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62817 Concealment penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act was not justified where the assessee returned immovable property values supported by approved valuer certificates and those valuations had been accepted in earlier years. A higher assessment value, by itself, did not prove fraud, gross neglect, or wilful neglect. The CBDT circular was treated as confirming that penalty is not attracted when relevant particulars are correctly furnished and the declared value is based on an approved valuer's report, even if the assessment adopts a higher figure. The underlying principle is that a valuation variance may shift the onus in quantum proceedings, but failure on quantum alone does not establish concealment. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 29 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62817