Home Case Index All Cases Wealth-tax Wealth-tax + AT Wealth-tax - 2013 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 644 - AT - Wealth-taxPenalty u/s 18(1)(c) - Claiming exemption from wealth tax - concealment of wealth or inaccurate furnishing of particulars of such wealth. - Held that:- It can easily be said that the assesse had not only filed inaccurate particulars of wealth but the verification of return was also not based on true facts - The assessment and penalty proceedings were different - It had not furnished any explanation that could rebut the stand taken by the AO - he was justified in invoking provisions of explanation 2 to section 18(1)(c) - assesse had not included the value of the assets in its return without any basis and thus deprived the Sovereign of its due share of tax - It deserves to be treated differently from other tax-payers where they show the value of the assets in their returns and question the taxability of such assets. A return was not an ordinary piece of paper - it was a document that had to be verified by authorized persons only - In the verification column assesses were supposed to make a declaration about correctness of the details mentioned in the return - If the assesse chooses to ignore these important factors while filing return of wealth, he cannot escape from the ensuing results. Non-inclusion of taxable asset was a prima facie proof of furnishing of inaccurate particulars resulting in concealing the particulars of wealth - Assesse was at liberty to rebut said presumption - Explanation filed by the assesse was the deciding factor to arrive at final conclusion - During penal proceedings assesse was issued a notice asking him why penalty should not be levied - After considering the explanation filed by the assesse, AO reached at the conclusion that assesse had not included the taxable wealth in the return - As per the established principles of taxation jurisprudence non- inclusion of taxable wealth resulting in loss to Revenue had to be dealt with as per the provisions of the section 18(1)(c)of the Act. Assesse had claimed that it was under the impression that the assets in question were exempt as per the provisions of the Act. For claiming an exemption assesse had to include the asset in the return - Without including the same in the return filed it cannot claim exemption - Claims of exemption/deduction/rebate were not to be decided by the assesses - it was the job of the AO to entertain or rejects such claim as per the provisions of the Act - Twin factors essential for levying penalty u/s.18(1)(c) of the Act very much exists in the case – Appeal Rejected.
|