2001 (9) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the asst. yr. 1984-85 by which penalty of Rs. 7,87,815 imposed by the AO under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957, was deleted. 2. Relevant facts as noted by the AO are that assessee filed return for asst. yr. 1984-85 showing value of building at 12/4, Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad at Rs. 8,52,321 and assessment was completed on 29th Aug.,1985, in which value of the Faridabad property was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent. The AO considered all the facts but was not satisfied and he levied the penalty for concealment of wealth in respect of property at Faridabad and Bombay which stands cancelled by the CWT(A) by observing as under : "2.2 I have gone through the penalty order and have also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The enhancement in the wealth in the de novo assessm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort of the Valuation Officer to whom the reference was made after the directions of the CWT under s. 25(2). The higher estimate of fair market value by the Valuation Officer is only another opinion just as determination of the fair market value by the approved valuer was also an opinion. On this basis, the appellant cannot be held to have concealed the particulars. In any case, the issue is covere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h March, 1980, and AO nowhere had recorded the satisfaction to start penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act except by mentioning at the end of the assessment order that penalty notice under s. 18(1)(c) had been issued. The only requirement as per ratio of the above case is that AO should form an opinion and should record his satisfaction but that is missing and penalty is to go. The seco....