TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (7) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns late, he submitted a petition on June 21, 1973, to the learned Commissioner u/s. 18(2A) of the Act for waiver of the penalty imposable under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. By the impugned order the learned Commissioner has rejected the prayer on the ground that according to him the assessee had not made a full disclosure, which is one of the essential conditions for an invocation of the power under the aforesaid section of law. What happened was that the petitioner in his wealth-tax return had disclosed the valuation of the immovable property he owns at Ulubari, Gauhati, at Rs. 61,250 for his half share. The learned Commissioner in his impugned order stated that the total investment in the property was to the I extent of Rs. 1,45,500 being Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to furnish the return of net wealth which such person was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 14, or ...... If he is satisfied that such person (a) in the case referred to in clause (i) of this sub-section has, prior to the issue of notice to him under sub-section (2) of section 14, voluntarily and in good faith, made full disclosure of his net wealth ........" Strong reliance has been placed by Shri Bhattacharyya on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Hasan Ahmad Khan v. CWT[1975] 99 ITR 414. The facts of that case are almost identical with the case at hand. It was held there that if the assessee honestly thought that he had fully disclosed his net wealth, although the disclosure made by him is ultimately found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... What lies within my purview is to state that merely because the estimate of the assessee was not found acceptable, the assessee could not have been totally denied relief under s. 18(2A ) of the Act inasmuch as it cannot be said that the same had resulted in a failure to make a full disclosure. It is pertinent to note that the good faith of the assessee was not doubted. The main thrust of this requirement seems to be on the disclosure of each parcel of physical assets owned by an assessee. Let it be said that the view about an estimation would vary, and even if the assessee would have valued his share at Rs. 72,750 in the present cases, it could have been well said (as it has been) by the learned Commissioner that he (the assessee) underes....