1981 (11) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 20,000. The assessee had not given details of the jewellery in the returns or the weight of the jewellery and only the value was given. On the directions of the WTO, the assessee got the jewellery valued from the registered valuer who valued it at Rs. 40,808 for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and Rs. 44,617 for the asst. yr. 1975-76. This was taken at Rs. 40,000 for each of the two years by the WTO. The WTO levied penalty u/s 18 (1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) holding that the value of jewellery returned by the assessee is less than 75 per cent of the value of the assets taken at the time of the assessment. The WTO levied penalty of Rs. 20,000 in each of the two asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76. 3. The assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AAC held that the assessee, in the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, disclosed the value of jewellery at Rs. 20,000 which was assessed at Rs. 40,000 and so the assessee was to prove that it was not due to any fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The AAC held that he assessee had failed to prove it and so he confirmed the penalty order of the WTO in both the assessment years under appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the assessee has filed both the appeals on the ground that the assessee is not guilty of concealment of the value of the assets and so the penalties are not leviable. 6. The ld. Deptl. Rep. has supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that here was no int....