TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957, was deleted. 2. Relevant facts as noted by the AO are that assessee filed return for asst. yr. 1984-85 showing value of building at 12/4, Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad at Rs. 8,52,321 and assessment was completed on 29th Aug.,1985, in which value of the Faridabad property was assessed at Rs. 24 lacs. The assessment order was set aside by the CWT(A) vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for concealment of wealth in respect of property at Faridabad and Bombay which stands cancelled by the CWT(A) by observing as under : "2.2 I have gone through the penalty order and have also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The enhancement in the wealth in the de novo assessment order in pursuance of the directions of the CWT under s. 25(2) was limited to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CWT under s. 25(2). The higher estimate of fair market value by the Valuation Officer is only another opinion just as determination of the fair market value by the approved valuer was also an opinion. On this basis, the appellant cannot be held to have concealed the particulars. In any case, the issue is covered by the aforesaid clarification issued by the CBDT and therefore, the levy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act except by mentioning at the end of the assessment order that penalty notice under s. 18(1)(c) had been issued. The only requirement as per ratio of the above case is that AO should form an opinion and should record his satisfaction but that is missing and penalty is to go. The second argument of the learned counsel is that Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
