TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerging from the order of the AO is that the assessee is an individual who filed return of income for the Asstt.Year 2011-12 on 30.3.2012 showing total income at Rs. 1,72,290/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3), the returned income was accepted and assessed accordingly. Thereafter, the AO noticed that the assessee was liable to file wealth tax return, but she did not do so. According to the AO, the aggregate total wealth amounted to Rs. 1,07,78,088/- and after deduction of exemption wealth of Rs. 30.00 lakhs, the net wealth worked out at Rs. 77,78,088/-. Since the assessee has not filed the return, her case was reopened under section 17 and issued notice under section 17(1) of the Act on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice issued under section 18(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 it was mentioned that the penalty proceedings would be initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such wealth; whereas in the proceedings penalty has been levied on the charge of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It was submitted that the flip-flop on the part of the AO was very much apparent that on one hand penalty was initiated under one default and on the other hand, the same was considered to be levied under another default. It was submitted that the WTO has treated both these distinctive charges as if they were interchangeable and optional without appreciating that both these charges stand on an independent footing and cannot be applied as an option ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y needed to be deleted. However, the explanation of the assessee was not found to be acceptable to the ld.CWT(A). He observed that this being clerical lacuna in the notice of penalty, the same could not help the assessee to infer that the AO was not clear as to under which limb the penalty was initiated/levied. He rejected the contentions of the assessee by treating the same as technical in nature and confirmed the order of the WTO. Dissatisfied with the order of the ld.CWT(A), the assessee is now before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions made before the Revenue authorities. He further submitted that the order passed by the Revenue authorities is bad in law, because penalty notice was issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice under section 17 of the WT Act, she has filed the return. There is no question of ambiguity in the penalty order of the WTO as the WTO has clearly spelt out in the order that the act of assessee for not furnishing the return of wealth within the stipulated time is treated as concealing the particulars of net wealth chargeable to wealth tax, and therefore, there is no flip-flop as contended by the assessee in the action of the WTO. Mere technical or clerical mistake cannot invalidate the penalty proceedings. 5. With the help of ld.representatives, we have gone through the record and impugned orders of the Revenue authorities. We find that the issue for our consideration is, whether penalty initiated and levied under section 18(1)(c)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. In the present case, there is no clear-cut or certain charges based on which impugned penalty has been imposed. As pointed out above, the Revenue used two distinct expressions of charge; one in the penalty notice and other in penalty order. This gives rise to the ambiguity and vitiate the proceedings. We find that similar aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Snita Transport P. Ld. Vs. ACIT 42 taxmann.com 54 (Guj). In the case of Snita Transport P.Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has observed that while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 provide an opportunity to explain as to why penalty be not imposed. If an Assessing Officer used expression "or" in between the conceal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by them. If no such clear cut finding is reached by the authority, penalty cannot be levied. It was a case in which in final conclusion the authority had recorded that "I am of the opinion that it will have to be said that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." It was in this respect the Bench observed that "Now the language of "and/or" may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasi-criminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as t....