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 →

Loknath Prasad Gupta Versus DCIT, CC-XXV, Kolkata

Levy of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - assessee demonstrated before AO that assessee is a non-technical person and solely dependent upon the advice of his accountant in respect of technical matters, accordingly, assessee was under the impression that liability for filing of Wealth Tax return would be looked after by his accountant. As the assessee received the notice for filing wealth tax return, he immediately acted and reacted accordingly and paid the demand of tax on time. - H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-DR ORDER PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Central-III, Kolkata in appeal No.18/CC-XXV/CIT(A) CIII/ 2011-12/Kolkata dated 14.02.2014. Assessment was framed by ACWT, Central Circle-XXV, Kolkata u/s 17/16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide his order dated 30.12.2010 for assessment year 2006-07. Penalty levied by CIT(A)-III, Kolkata u/s 23A of the Wealth Tax Act, .....

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 penalty proceedings under section 18(1)© of the Act in the assessment order. As noticed by AO that assessee did not file his wealth tax return voluntarily, so notice u/s 18(1)© of the WT Act was issued to initiate the penalty proceedings. However, Ld. AR of assessee demonstrated before AO that assessee is a non-technical person and solely dependent upon the advice of his accountant in respect of technical matters, accordingly, assessee was under the impression that liability for fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ime. However, AO disregarded the claim of assessee and imposed penalty @ 200% tax sought to be evaded u/s. 18(1)© of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CWT(A). Before Ld. CWT(A), AR of assessee submitted that there was a search and seizure action initiated by Central Excise Department and Income Tax Department on dated 31.05.2005 and 20.11.2006 respectively. Consequently, assessee had gone before Hon'ble Settlement Commissioner against the action taken by Centra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see to set the things right besides the assessment has been completed after accepting the net wealth as filed in the return of wealth tax. Accordingly, Ld. CWT(A) has reduced the penalty from 200% to 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before us. Shri Amit Kumar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Department. 5. We have heard rival parties .....

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