TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO insisted on the submission of an Architect certificate in relation to the above property. A number of adjournments were sought. On19th Oct., 1974, the assessee submitted a revised return showing net wealth of Rs. 4,40,650. This included the value of the aforesaid property at Rs. 3,18,480 or Rs. 2,18,480 after excluding the basic exemption of Rs. 1 lac. The above valuation was based on the report of an approved valuer dt.16th Oct., 1974. He had valued the property at Rs. 3,18,480. The WTO, however, did not accept the above valuation. He, referred the matter to the Valuation Officer under s. 16A of the Act. The Valuation Officer valued it at Rs. 4,45,300 as on31st March, 1974i.e. the last date of the account year for the assessment year un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because of conscious and contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. In the circumstances, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,27,555 under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The assessee is now in appeal before us. We have heard the parties. We are of opinion that the present case does not attract any penalty either under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act, or that Section r/w the Explanation thereof. It was found by the Tribunal while dealing with the assessee's quantum appeals for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 in WT A. No. 735 and 736 (Del)/1976-77 that the assessee had disclosed the value of the aforesaid property at Rs.1,83,000, Rs. 2,05,000 and Rs. 2,05,000 for the asst. yr. 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 respectively. Whereas the values shown for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty. 7. The next contention relates to the valuations of shares. The assessee at first valued them at Rs. 13,500. We have seen the computation of this valuation. The assessee found the total of share capital, reserves and surplus and proposed dividend. From this, he made adjustment for advance tax. The balance was taken as the value of the equity share capital and on this basis, the valuation of the assessee s holdings was determined at Rs. 13,500. In the revised return, the assessee did not make any adjustment for advance tax which enhanced the valuation of the share to Rs. 21,678. In our opinion, here also the assessee cannot be held guilty of any concealment or even of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The assessee merely followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
