Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Suresh Kumar Banthia, (legal heir of Jethmal Banthia) Versus DCWT, Central, Kolkata

2016 (1) TMI 257 - ITAT KOLKATA

Levy of penalty for concealment of wealth - Assessee responded that notice u/s 17 of the Act was merely issued due to change in opinion from the assessment records and does not attract the penalty provisions. - It was his submission that in the situation that prevailed as on the due date for filing the return of income the assessee was under bona fide belief that there was no requirement for filing wealth tax return and therefore no adverse inference of concealment of wealth can be drawn against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Niloy Baran Som, JCIT-SRDR ORDER Per Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) Central-II, Kolkata in appeal No.4/CC-XVII/CWT(A)CII/ 11-12 dated 10.12.2013. Assessment was framed by DCWT, Central Circle- XVIII, Kolkata u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide his order dated 31.03.2011 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. Issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed notice u/s 17 of the Act on dated 4.11.2009 to file the return of wealth. In reply to the notice, assessee has submitted his wealth tax return for the relevant year under consideration on 17.02.2010 declared net wealth at ₹ 49,88,575/- (20,20,227 + 30,50,000/-). Accordingly, AO framed the wealth tax assessment and issued notice for the concealment of wealth under the Act. Assessee responded that notice u/s 17 of the Act was merely issued due to change in opinion from the assessment reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the return of wealth was not filed by him voluntarily. The return was filed only after the proceedings were initiated u/s. 17 of W.T. Act in financial year 2009-10. In the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant has contended that there was no concealment because the amount of cash in hand and the value of jewellery were duly disclosed in the balance-sheet as at 31.03.2005 and filed along with the return of income. However, I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the purpose of business and therefore, it would not form part of the taxable wealth and against the value of jeweellery thee was tax liability and thereby the net value of the jewerllery would be less than the taxable limit. However, on careful consideration of fact, I find no force in the submission of appellant because in sec. 2(ea) of W.T. Act, the definition of assets has been provided. As per sec. 2(ea)(iii), jewellery, bullion, furniture, utensils or any other article made wholly or partly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pose of wealth tax. The appellant was having substantial amount of cash in hand as well as jewellery and still he did not file his return of wealth voluntarily. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was justified in imposing the penalty u/s. 18(1)© of the Act. The penalty imposed by him confirmed. The ground no. 2 and 3 are dismissed. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CWT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal:- 1. For that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there was no concealment, the facts were disclosed before the AO in the Income Tax Return filed and the default, if any, for omission to file the return of wealth was only technical in nature for which no penalty should have been imposed. 4. For that the Ld. CWT(A) erred in confirming the imposition of penalty when there was no specific charge that the assessee concealed the particulars of any assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of any assets. Shri Sunil Surana, Ld. Authorized Representat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

48/-. The aforesaid two items were regarded as Assets within the meaning of Sec.2(ea) of the Act and the quantum of wealth of the Assessee was determined at ₹ 49,88,578/- (Rs.20,28,,227 + ₹ 30,10,348 - ₹ 50,000 (exemption limit for cash in hand i.e., cash upto ₹ 50,000 is not to be considered for the purpose of determining taxable wealth). As per the law as it prevailed in AY 2005-06, if the quantum of wealth if it is above ₹ 15 lakhs, there was a liability to file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5/-. 6. It was his submission that there was bona fide reason why the Assessee did not file the return of wealth as on the due date for the relevant AY. He submitted that the cash as shown in the Balance Sheet of the Assessee for AY 2004-05 in income tax proceedings was cash generated from business and was meant to be used for business necessities. It was his submission that such cash being business asset cannot be regarded as Asset within the meaning of the definition of the term as given in Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d counsel for the Assessee also brought to our notice a decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Bimal Kumar Singh vs. DCWT WTA No.13/Kol/2010 for AY 2006-07 order dated 20.7.2011, wherein the tribunal has taken a view that cash in hand generated out of cash sales is business asset and cannot be regarded as asset u/s.2(ea)(vi) of the Act. 7. Regarding jewellery, the learned counsel for the Assessee brought to our notice that there were liability to the extent of ₹ 6,72,756 on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 13,55,462/- alone is considered, the net wealth of the Assessee would only be ₹ 13,55,462/- which is well below the limit of ₹ 15 lakhs for filing return of wealth. 8. The learned counsel for the Assessee fairly submitted that the order of assessment u/s.17/16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, for AY 2004-05 dated 31.3.2008 in Assessee s own case, was set aside in proceedings u/s.263 of the Act by the concerned CIT(A) but that was only after the due date for filing return of wealth b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version