TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of its wealth in spite of the fact that the impugned deposit was taxed twice over, once in the hands of the Hindu undivided family and then in the hands of an individual ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had concealed the net wealth ignoring the material and/or evidence regarding the bona fide conduct of the assessee and as such the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and vitiated in law ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Officer completed the reassessment of the Hindu undivided family determining the total wealth at Rs. 2,78,187. The Wealth-tax Officer also initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, and levied penalty of Rs. 16,000 for the reasons stated by him in the order of penalty (annexure "A-2"). Aggrieved by the order of the Wealth-tax Officer, the assessee-applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, A-Range, who confirmed the levy of penalty by its order dated August 19, 1985, passed in Appeal No. WRO-40 of 1985-86 (annexure "A-3"). Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the assessee filed an appeal to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 on considering the legal position of the point it is held as under : " For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing or fails in taking steps for preparation of paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference. We refuse to answer the reference and also saddle the assessee with the costs of the Department quantified at Rs. 150. " The provisions of section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and section 44(2) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, are intended to serve the same purpose. The consequence remains the same. According to the aforesaid authority, the court is not under a legal ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
