2015 (12) TMI 1321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hort, "the Act") against the order dated 22.11.2013, Annexure-A.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' Chandigarh in WTA No.5/Chd/2008 for the assessment year 1988-89, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in not sustaining the action of AO/CIT(A) in imposing/upholding the penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 even when the valuation of land as adopted by the Valuation Officer has neither been disputed before the CWT(A) nor before the Hon'ble ITAT by the assessee and there is huge difference between the value of assets returned and assessed and the assessee failed to disclose true and c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s as relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in WTA No.2 of 2014 may be noticed. The assessee was the owner of plot of land measuring 77004 square yards. The value of this plot was declared by the assessee as part of its asset for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 on the basis of valuation report. The Assessing Officer received the information that the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell the said land and he consequently valued the said land and assessed the difference as wealth of the assessee. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] on appeal by the assessee upheld the valuation made by the Assessing Officer. Vide consolidated order dated 21.7.1995, the Tribunal set aside the assessment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the levy of penalty under Section 18 (1)(c) of the Act. With regard to assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the case of the assessee fell within the purview of reasonable cause as it was under the bonafide belief that no wealth tax was payable during the said years when it had incurred losses. Hence the instant appeals by the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 5. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 22.11.2013, Annexure A.3 that the difference in the valuation of the property as declared by the assessee and as assessed by the Assessing Officer did not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the asset as it is well settled that valuation is a matter of estimation and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er by the Assessing Officer, who in turn estimated the value of the land at a figure other than the value declared by the assessee. The difference in the valuation as declared by the assessee and as assessed by the Assessing Officer does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the asset as it has been held by number of judicial pronouncements that valuation is a matter of estimation and estimation by registered valuer of the assessee and the estimation by the District Valuation Officer being at variance does not attract the levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, we find no merit in the levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Act in assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. The Assessing Officer i....