TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief, are that the assessee company filed its return of wealth declaring total wealth of Rs. 1,01,72,101/- on 29-03-2006. In this case a search action u/s.132 of the I.T. Act in the Ranka group of cases was conducted on 24-10-2002 during which cash of Rs. 90,00,000/- was found and was admitted by the assessee as unaccounted cash. The AO issued a notice u/s.17 on 10-11-2006 asking the assessee to file the return of wealth on valuation date 31-03-2003 pertaining to A.Y.2003-04. In response to the said notice the assessee vide letter dated 20-07-2007 requested the AO to treat the return of wealth filed on 29-03-2006 vide Acknowledgement No.174 as return filed in response to notice u/s.17. According to the AO, the return filed on 29-03-2006 for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations given by the assessee the AO levied penalty of Rs. 1,01,721/- u/s.18(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 5. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A upheld the action of the AO by observing as under : "5. I have gone through the penalty order, the appellant's submissions and the case laws cited by the appellant. It is an admitted fact of the case that the cash of Rs. 90,00,000/ had been found during the search and was admitted by the appellant to be unaccounted cash. Thus the wealth to the extent of the cash unearthed during the search can hardly be considered as disclosed wealth. In his submissions dated 2.04.2009 made in appeal proceedings the appellant has mentioned that the reasons recorded u/s 17 were as under: "During the course of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat case that : "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 penalty is leviable. " 8. After considering the above submissions, the honourable Tribunal held as under : "7. We have heard both the parties and their content ions have carefully been considered. Facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequentially concealment of wealth. Thus the facts of the appellant's case are entirely different from those before the Honourable Mumbai Tribunal." 10. To conclude the levy of penalty by the AO is confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed." 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the return of wealth for A.Y. 2003-04 was voluntarily filed on 29-03-2006 declaring total wealth of Rs. 1,01,72,101/-. The notice u/s.17 was issued on 10-11-2006 to which the assessee had replied that the return of wealth submitted on 29-03-2006 be treated as return in response to notice u/s.17 of the Wealth Tax Act. Further, the AO complete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o considered the various decisions cited before us. We find a search in the Ranka Group of cases was conducted on 24-10-2002 during which cash of 90 lakhs was found. It was also admitted by the assessee that the same is unaccounted cash. The assessee filed the return of wealth on 29-03-2006 declaring net wealth of Rs. 1,01,72,101/- which includes the above Rs. 90 lakhs and paid due tax and interest thereon. The AO issued notice u/s.17 on 10-11-2006. It was explained by the assessee that the return filed earlier on 29-03-2006 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.17. According to the AO, the return filed on 29-03-2006 was a belated return and non-est. He therefore treated the return filed on 29-03-2006 as return filed in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay has been admittedly condoned by the AO. Admittedly, the assessees have also filed the balance sheet in which the discrepancies appear. The learned counsel referred to Expln. 1 to s. 271 reproduced above and submitted that the Tribunal should have held that the assessees failed to prove that the explanation is bona fide and all facts relating to the some material have been disclosed by them. We are unable to accept this contention in the facts of the present case. The Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that there is no deliberate concealment. Indeed, it was not possible to arrive at the finding that the assessees deliberately concealed the income even though they had disclosed the material relevant to the computa....