9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, dated 30-06-2017, on the issue of penalty of Rs. 19,721/- u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. 2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee, Smt. B. Divya, a close relative of Shri B. Ramalinga Raju, had not filed her return of wealth for AY. 2004-05. Assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee's plea that the wealth had been declared by her voluntarily, AO held that assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of her wealth to that extent, and imposed minimum penalty of Rs. 19,721/- @ 100% of the tax sought evaded, vide penalty order u/s.18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act dated 27-06-2012. 2.1. On an appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on the reason that the fact regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued show cause letter asking for various moveable and immoveable properties, assessee filed the computation which was accepted by AO. Ld. Counsel referred to the notice by AO, reply given in this regard. Further, it was submitted in later two years also proceedings were initiated u/s. 17 and no penalty was initiated/levied. Being the first year of Wealth Tax, the bonafides of assessee should be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no other assets either immovable or movable, as can be seen from the computations filed. Even though the proceedings were initiated and finalized u/s. 17 in AY. 2005-06 and AY. 2006-07, no penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) was levied by the AO. Thus, the reopening u/s. 17 has no relevance for levy of penalty. As the explanation was bonafide, this being first year of wealth tax in her case, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
