TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,086. However, the assessee intended to file revision petition before the learned CWT(A) seeking deletion of the said addition. 3. In response to the show cause under s. 18(1)(c), the AO (sic-assessee) submitted that penalty under s. 18(1)(c) was not exigible in the case on the following grounds: "(a) That the exemption under s. 2(e) has been allowed in the earlier years also. (b) The assessee has not surrendered the sum of Rs. 26,09,086 as has been claimed by the AO. (c) There should be no distinction between the agricultural land and the farm house built on the same. If exemption is admissible under s. 2(e) on the agricultural land and same should also be allowed on the farm house. (d) Admission of an exemption of disallowance of a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purpose of storage of implements. Since this exemption is not admissible but has been claimed by him under false pretences, it tantamounts to filing of inaccurate particulars of wealth. (e) A spot inspection was conducted by the Inspector and in his report he had clearly stated that the farm house consists of bed rooms, bathrooms, dining hall drawing hall, etc. The same is never used for the purpose of storage of livestocks implements or tools. The AO has further held that the report of the inspector was substantiated by the statement of the supervisor recorded in the presence of the kitchen in charge. On being confronted with the statement the assessee had no reply to the allegation that the farm house was not being used for the purpose m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion was claimed though no appeal has been filed by the appellant against the assessment order for the asst. yr. 1988-89 but the fact remains that the value of the property in question was disclosed by the appellant for which imposition of penalty under s. 18(1)(c) is not justified. This view is also supported by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prithiviraj & Co. (1992) 99 CTR (Del) 261 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del). In effect the appeal is allowed and penalty order is cancelled." 7. Aggrieved the Revenue has come up in second appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the AO's order and submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under....