TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 2,06,220 2. The brief facts are that the assessee's assessments were completed under s. 16(1)/16(3) of the WT Act on the basis of returns filed. In these returns the assessee has shown a bungalow namely, 'Mohan Nivas' as self-occupied along with land appurtenant thereto, the same was constructed in the year 1968 and exemption was claimed under s. 5(1A) of the WT Act. The claim of exemption was granted from year to year since more than 20 years. Thereafter, the AO issued notices under s. 17 of the WT Act. The assessee filed returns consequent to these notices on similar figure as filed in the original returns. The AO, however, denied the exemption of residential house claimed by the assessee under s. 5(1A). In the assessment proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, held that the property belonged to the assessee individual besides the value of sub-plots Nos. 417/1/2 and 417/1/4 was not included in the return of wealth claiming that the same belonged to two sons which also was negatived by the AO and value of these open plots also included in the assessee's hands. The wealth-tax assessments were framed at an enhanced figure. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals. The Tribunal by its order dt. 9th Jan., 2001, dismissed the assessee's appeals for asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 1994-95 upholding the AO's order. The AO in the meanwhile initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(c). The assessee reiterated his stand which did not find favour with the AO and the above penalties were imposed which were c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d property. The Department carne to know about these facts because other co-owners effected the sales on 20th April, 1996. The sale by co-owners itself shows that the assessee was not the individual owner of the property. All these legal developments are enough to indicate that the property did not belong to assessee individual but to the HUF. For wealth-tax purposes, in quantum assessment the matter may have been decided against the assessee but as far as the concealment penalty is concerned, all these factors become very important in deciding whether the assessee is liable for concealment or not. Considering the consistent practice of Department accepting the house and land appurtenant thereto as exempt under WT Act coupled with the fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the basis of the provisions contained in Part B of Schedule III to the Rules was accepted by the Revenue for almost 20 years. However, as per the settled legal position, there is no res judicata in tax matters when different years are involved vide Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 529 (SC) and Joint Family of Udyan Chinubhai vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 416 (SC). Even while rejecting the appellant-assessee's contention based on the assessments in the previous years, considering the fact that in all the previous years the assessee had applied the user test and the Department did not find fault with the same and that although on an overall consideration of the relevant tests applied, the Tribunal as well as this Court have com....