https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216431 Penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act could not be sustained where the assessee disclosed all assets in the return but used a valuation method later rejected in assessment. The penalty order failed to identify clearly whether the default was concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a penalty based on such ambiguity is impermissible in quasi-criminal proceedings. Explanation 4 could not be invoked for the first time at the appellate stage without notice, because the assessee had to be given an opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption arising from the returned value being below the assessed value. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216431 Penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act could not be sustained where the assessee disclosed all assets in the return but used a valuation method later rejected in assessment. The penalty order failed to identify clearly whether the default was concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a penalty based on such ambiguity is impermissible in quasi-criminal proceedings. Explanation 4 could not be invoked for the first time at the appellate stage without notice, because the assessee had to be given an opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption arising from the returned value being below the assessed value. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216431