TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (9) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his net wealth to the extent of Rs. 39,191 ? 2. Whether, in view of the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that penalty was leviable on the assessee under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? Briefly stated, the material facts are that the Income-tax Department conducted a raid on the business premises of the firm, Messrs. Lekh Raj Manekchand, 51, Indira Market, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, of which the assessee was the sole proprietor. In the raid, certain incriminating documents were seized. The assessee came forward and filed a settlement-cum-disclosure petition dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raid, which amount was added by him at the time of framing the assessments referred to above. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, by his orders dated March 14, 1974, and March 15, 1974, respectively, annexure 'E', held that the assessee had concealed true particulars of his wealth and had furnished inaccurate particulars of the net wealth in his returns. He, accordingly, imposed penalties to the extent of Rs. 39,191 for each of the assessment years in question. Against the orders of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by order dated January 20, 1976. It is out of that order that the present questions are said to have arisen and reference thereof made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1968. The amended provision, in so far as material for the present purposes, reads as under : "(iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any wealth-tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount representing the value of any assets in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or any assets or debts in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Explanation 1.-Where, (i) the value of any asset returned by any person is less than seventy-five per cent. of the value of such asset as determined in an assessment under section 16 or section 17 (the value so assessed being referred to hereafter in this Explanation as the correct value of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the years for which he is liable to wealth-tax and that penalty for the purpose of wealth-tax will be waived by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 18(2A) of the Act. In other words, the understanding reached with the Revenue under which the various terms were stated in the settlement application included that penalty for purposes of wealth-tax will be waived by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The settlement application was disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-tax by order, annexure 'D', dated March 26, 1971. In regard to waiving of penalty under section 18(2A) of the Act, it was stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax in paragraph D that the same will be considered on merits for each year. In other words, the term for sett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng from the assessee for such want of care, the court may, in a given case, infer deliberateness and the return may be liable to be branded as a false return. In the facts and circumstances of that particular case, however, the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court was that non-inclusion of the item relating to freight was on account of a bona fide mistake. In N. A. Mohamed Haneef's case [1972] 83 ITR 215 (SC), it was held in the facts of the case that there was no basis for coming to a firm conclusion that the assessee deliberately supplied wrong particulars and, therefore, the penalty could not be imposed. In Vatsala's case [1989] 177 ITR 120 (Mad), the assessee included, inter alia, the value of a certain immovable property at Rs....