2001 (10) TMI 1171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ORDER N. Vijayakumaran (Judicial Member) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CWT(A) XX, Mumbai dated 13-7-1998. It relates to the assessment year 1990-91. 2. The assessee is the owner of the land at Currimbhoy Road, Pune. On the valuation report dated 12-11-1986, the assessee declared the value of the said land at Rs. 21,97,000. This was the value even as o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nadvertence on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and levied the maximum penalty. On appeal to the CWT(A) it was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 52,678 which was the maximum penalty instead of Rs. 1,00,000 levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port the estimated value of Rs. 40 lacs. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer has estimated the value with the view to showing that the returned value is less than 70 per cent of the assessed value, so that explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) can be invoked. There is no other material or basis taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer to arrive at the figure of Rs. 40 lacs. On the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... furnished the relevant particulars and there is no concealment on the part of the assessee or furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of facts is to be accepted as correct. The learned AR's submission that the Assessing Officer deliberately raised the value of the property to Rs. 40 lacs so that the case is brought out within the mischief of explanation 4 of section 18(1)(c) seems to ....