2016 (1) TMI 1068

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....king any addition to the wealth returned by the Appellant and therefore Appellant neither concealed particulars of any asset nor furnished inaccurate particulars of any asset / Debt. 4. The learned CWT failed to note that the one and only taxable wealth of Appellant was her jewellery and due to oversight she did not file the return in time. 5. It is prayed that the penalty of Rs. 65,158/-levied by the A.O. may be deleted." 2. For other assessment years the figures are as under. WTA No. Name of Assessee Amount of Penalty 25/Mum/2013 Shanti Bhagwandas Raheja Rs. 65,158/- 26/Mum/2013 Vijay Bhagwandas Raheja Rs. 9,576/- 27/Mum/2013 Vijay Bhagwandas Raheja Rs. 1,05,961/- 3. These appeals were argued together by both the parties and for the sake of convenience these are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 3.1 Since facts relating to levy of penalty in all these cases are same, for the sake of convenience, facts relating to WTA No.24/Mum/2013 are discussed and the decision taken therein would be equally applicable to all these appeals. 4. The assessees filed wealth tax returns in respect of impugned assessment years on 19/1/2011, which is a period beyond t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is above the limit prescribed for wealth tax liability as per W.T. Act,1957. Here it is further pertinent to mention that, since the assessee has net wealth which is above the maximum value prescribed for filing of the return of net wealth, and inspite of this fact has not filed the return of net wealth within the stipulated time period, I am hereby satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his assets within the meaning of Explanation 3 to section 18(1 )(c) of W.T. Act, 1957. 4. In view of the above I am satisfied that the act of the assessee is not bonafide hence it is a fit case to levy penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act,1957. Accordingly, the minimum penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded works out to Rs. 48,021/: and maximum penalty @ 500% works out to Rs. 2,40,105/-. I hereby levy minimum penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs. 48,021/: (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Twenty One only). 4.3 Appeal was filed against the imposition of penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that due date of filing for return of wealth was 31/7/2007. Due to oversight assessee did not file the return on the due date. When....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that in the said case, notice under section 17 was served upon the assessee in the month of August,1994. Thereafter, the AO issued a letter dated 19/9/1995 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why in the absence of wealth tax return assessment may not be completed on the basis of profit and loss account and balance sheet of the company available in the Income Tax return and thereafter assessee filed the return of wealth in October,1995 and in those circumstances it was held that Explanation-3 was applicable and thus, levy of concealment penalty was confirmed. Thus, it was submitted by Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the penalty. Ld. AR also submitted that in present case assessee had filed return voluntarily before issue of notice under section 17. It was submitted by him that there is no material on record, according to which it can be said that any action was contemplated by the Department in respect of wealth tax returns to be filed by the assessee before the assessee filed these returns voluntarily. Thus, it was submitted by Ld. AR that the facts of the present case are entirely different and it is a case where no concealment p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the AO in this behalf must be fair and objective. Therefore, according to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court the levy of concealment penalty is not automatic and all the facts and circumstances of the case are required to be kept in mind while deciding an issue that whether or not levy of concealment penalty is justified. 7.2 In the present case while initiating penalty proceedings as well as while levying penalty, Explanation-3 to section 18(1)(c) has been invoked. Explanation -3 read as under: "[Explanation 3- Where any person fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in sub-section 91) of section 17A, a return of his net wealth which he is required to furnished under section 14 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of april 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub-section (4) of section 16 or sub-section (1) of section 17 and the Assessing Officer or the Deputy commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has assessable net wealth, then, such person shall, for the pur....