2018 (3) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Tax Act, 1957. Since all the appeals arise out of common order of Ld. first appellate authority, the same are being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and no adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental representative [DR]. 2. First we take up WTA No. 09/Mum/2017 wherein the assessee has raised the following effective Grounds of Appeal: - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the impugned Notice u/s.274 r.w.s.18(1)(C), dated 30/12/2010 or 18/05/2011 was fatal as it did not specify that it is for 'fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....op Premises, without following the rules prescribed under Schedule III of the Act, there erroneously added the value outside the jurisdiction of the law, consequently the real value of the Shop Property was not determined; Reliance Placed on Bharat Hari Singhania CWT 207 ITR 1, wherein it was held that the choice of valuation is not available outside the scope of Schedule III. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. WTO had erroneously added 'Cash in Hand' of Rs. 7,19,364/- which did not belong to the Assessee, but it is owned by M/s Sai Homes, therefore it is Liability and not the Asset of the Assessee as per provisions section 2m of the Wealth Tax Act. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not ten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y with confirmation of penalty and nothing beyond. Moreover, the returned wealth has been accepted as such by the department. Therefore both these grounds stand dismissed in limine. Ground No. 5 is general in nature. Ground No. 1 contest the penalty order on technical ground on the premise that the penalty notice has not specified the particular charge for which the penalty was being initiated / levied. However, we find that neither quantum assessment order initiating penalty is before us nor the copies of the penalty notices are on record. In such a scenario, we have no option but to dismiss this ground of appeal and therefore, the same stands dismissed. The remaining Ground No.2 contest the imposition of penalty on the ground that the ret....