TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 in the assessment year 1997-98 and Rs. 1,09,876 in the assessment year 1998-99 imposed under section 18(1)( c ). 3. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. In the instant case the assessee along with his two relatives jointly purchased property comprising of a flat. The total consideration for the said flat was borne by the three persons in proportion 20 per cent, 40 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. Thus, the aforesaid persons jointly held that the said flat as co-owners having a specific share in the property. For the assessment year 1997-98, Smt. Madhuri S. Sheth, one of the co-owners of the property filed a return of wealth including her proportionate share of the value of the property. The other two co-owners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -owners included the proportionate share of income in their returns as individuals and in their returns filed in their status as individuals. The department had itself accepted the position that the status of the person was that of a co-owner and not an AOP for the earlier assessment year 1995-96 for wealth-tax purposes wherein the proportionate value of the property which was included in the hands of Mrs. Madhuri Sheth was accepted by the department in a regular assessment under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Assessing Officer had therefore, taken the view earlier that the status was that of co-owners and not that of AOP. Hence even otherwise there was another view in the matter as far as the issue on merits was concerned. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax return. Merely because status was treated by the department as AOP, no mala fide can be attributable to the assessee for concealment of the wealth. The assessee had included proportionate value of the flat in the individual return of wealth for the assessment year 1997-98 of the co-owners. The assessee Smt. Madhuri Sheth, in her individual return of wealth filed for assessment year 1997-98 had included proportionate share of flat for wealth-tax purposes. The other co-owners whose taxable wealth was below the minimum limit is not liable to tax did not file the return of wealth and this position was accepted by the department itself for the earlier assessment year 1995-96 in the wealth-tax assessment under section 16(3) of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department had also accepted the position that the status of person that of co-owners and not an AOP for the earlier assessment year 1995-96 for wealth-tax purposes, wherein the proportionate value of the property which was included in the hands of Mrs. Madhuri Sheth was accepted by the department in regular assessment framed under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Assessing Officer had therefore, earlier taken the view that the status was of co-owners and not that of an AOP. Thus, there was another view in the matter as far as treatment of a status as AOP or co-owners of property is concerned. Under these circumstances, as per our considered view it could not be said that the assessee is acting mala fide or in conscious disregard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
