9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04. The other co-owner were Manohar Lal, Padam Prakash and Radhey Lal. This valuation at Rs. 5,404 was accepted by the WTO in the original assessment proceedings, being based as it was, on the purchase cost (Rs. 21,616) of the land. It would appear that the land came to be sold for Rs. 79,772 in February, 1971; 1/4th share there of amounted to Rs. 19,943. The WTO, therefore, reported the assessments for these four years under s. 17 to reassessee the assessee's 1/4th share in the said land. On completion of these reassessments he also issued show cause notices to the assessee for levy of penalties under s. 18(1)(c) for these four years. In reply the assessee's explanation was : the value returned in the original proceedings was under the boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f land in that area. Thirdly, there had also been no development of the land which was lying uncultivated all these years. The land was actually situated, as per the relevant Master Plan in the agricultural area and was not to be used for industrial purposes. (b) The land came to be sold in February, 1971 and 1/4th share was credited to her account and the same was shown "in the asst. yr. 1971-72". There was thus no concealment on the part of the assessee. It was only on the basis of this information of sale in 1971 that the WTO reopened the proceedings under s. 17(1)(a). (c) The WTO discussed the case with the assessee's representative on24th March, 1972in the reassessment proceedings. The WTO proposed and the assessee's representative a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mansa Ram & Sons (1973) Tax 247 All. In any case merely because an inclusion has been made in the assessment, penalty for concealment could not also follow as had been held in Gumani Ram's case (85 ITR 67). (e) Before penalty could be imposed the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented assessable wealth and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of her wealth and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of her wealth or had furnished inaccurate particular thereof. This position was not evident from the facts of this case. In the above view the AAC cancelled the penalties. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
