https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362376 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-disclosure of jewelry to be bonafide, noting the lack of prior information available to the Assessing Officer. The decision distinguished the case from precedent and emphasized the absence of evidence supporting undisclosed wealth. The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad on 22nd June 2018, overturning the penalty based on the assessee's genuine explanation and lack of justification for the penalty. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jun 2018 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362376 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-disclosure of jewelry to be bonafide, noting the lack of prior information available to the Assessing Officer. The decision distinguished the case from precedent and emphasized the absence of evidence supporting undisclosed wealth. The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad on 22nd June 2018, overturning the penalty based on the assessee's genuine explanation and lack of justification for the penalty. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362376