TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous nature of the provisions of section 40(3) of the Finance Act of 1983, it can be said that a patently wrong reading of the section cannot be camouflaged in terms of a bona fide mistake. It is therefore clear that the assessee had a taxable asset. In terms of Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) the assessee was deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the assessee was not able to substantiate its contention that its belief in the non-assessability of non-agricultural land was a bona fide mistake. The findings recorded by the Tribunal do not suffer from any legal infirmity - - - - - Dated:- 6-2-2006 - Judge(s) : P. D. DINAKARAN., P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by order dated November 27, 1997, upheld the assessment of the land for wealth-tax purposes. Penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) as well as section 18(1)(c) were initiated simultaneously. The assessee submitted that the penalty proceedings should be kept pending till the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). The assessee was given opportunity to explain the default in filing the wealth-tax returns. The assessee, in its reply dated "nil" which was received by the Assessing Officer, on January 19, 1993, submitted that in view of the construction of a building and the intended business use of the land, he was under the bona fide impression that the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in view of the construction of a building and the intended business use of the land the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the value of such land would be exempt from the levy of wealth-tax. It is further submitted that since the assessee came to know that wealth-tax was leviable, returns were filed on the same day for all the assessment years. More so, it was further submitted that the assessee was under the bona fide, though erroneous, impression which caused the delay in filing the returns and also further submitted that the appellant was under erroneous impression about non-assessability of the land. Hence levy of penalty under sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) is not attracted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c), the plea of the assessee was that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the value of the property was exempt from levy of wealth-tax. The only explanation of the assessee was that he was under the bona fide impression that the assets were not taxable for these years. What has to be decided therefore is the bona fides of this erroneous impression. Going beyond the well known principle that the ignorance of law is no excuse, it has to be pointed out that the assessee could not point out any material fact showing that it was prevented from getting to know the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1983. There is nothing to show that the assessee had been prevented in any way from either estimating the value of the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
