2002 (10) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the part of the assessee in spite of the fact that in his wealth-tax return filed on March 31, 1974, he had shown his total wealth of Rs. 1,88,775 under the head 'Movable property' and he had not disclosed the value of his immovable property? 2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,10,000 imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which had been upheld by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)?" Background facts giving rise to the present petition are that for the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed his wealth-tax return declaring a net wealth of Rs. 1,88,775, which represented only the movable property. The return was accepted under section 16(1) of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oncealing his wealth. After granting an opportunity to the assessee, a penalty of Rs. 5,10,100, being 100 per cent of the concealed wealth, was imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer. The assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) was partly successful inasmuch as the Commissioner reduced the quantum of penalty by Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. While deleting the penalty, the Tribunal took note of the fact that in the original return, the value of the land and building had been shown though under the head "Movable property". After the assessment the assessee moved a miscellaneous application seeking rectification and in this application the existence of land and building was also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Sanjiv Khanna that the disclosure of the immovable property by the assessee was not a voluntary act on his part and it was only after searching inquiries had been made by the Wealth-tax Officer that the assessee had no option but to declare his wealth correctly and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in disclosing the asset in question is, per se, perverse, giving rise to a question of law. Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal has submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal while coming to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X