TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 26, 1979, referred the following two questions : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax liability attributable to the concealed income of Rs. 1,90,000 has to be deducted for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1966-67 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for concealment of income had become final ?" At the outset, we may mention that the respondent/assessee, though served with notice, has not taken any steps either to appear in person or through counsel. To decide the second question referred to above, certain facts are n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total wealth at Rs. 4,47,543 by adding a sum of Rs. 1,95,000 representing profits on account of customs clearance permits received by the assessee. After deducting the income-tax liabilities, annuity deposits and wealth-tax liabilities, the Wealth-tax Officer determined the net wealth at Rs. 2,97,680. Simultaneously, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of wealth in respect of the sum added in the final return, namely, Rs. 1,95,000. The Wealth-tax Officer referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that the sum of Rs. 1,95,000 added by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis that a similar sum was added in the income-tax pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty order and not on the valuation date. On that basis, he levied a penalty of Rs. 1,90,000 being equal to the amount concealed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, both on merits and on the quantum of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took note of the findings rendered by the Tribunal in the income-tax assessment for the very same year in respect of the very same assessee and held that the assessee did not disclose the sum of Rs. 1,90,000 as his wealth in the wealth-tax proceedings. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal, following the decisions of the Calcutta and Kerala High Courts in CWT v. Bansidhar Poddar [1978] 112 ITR 957 and C. K. Babu Naidu v. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax payable on the undisclosed wealth. Learned counsel for the Revenue cited the following two decisions in support of his contention, namely, Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha v. CWT [1973] 90 ITR 97 (SC) and T. S. Srinivasa Iyer v. CWT [1976] 104 ITR 625 (Mad). As the assessee was not represented by counsel, Mr. Janarthana Raja, at the instance of the court, assisted us. He brought to our notice two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, CWT v. K. S. N. Bhatt [1984] 145 ITR 1 and CWT v. Vadilal Lallubhai [1984] 145 ITR 7. On the basis of the ratio of the abovesaid rulings of the Supreme Court, Mr. Janarthana Raja contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is quite in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court. In the first ca....