TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As held in the case of CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] We are inclined to hold that the penalty proceedings u/s.18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself after obtaining the information of the Fair Market Value of the land sold; from the concerned Sub Registrar. 5. The learned CWT(As) should have found that the Appellant has not suppressed or concealed her Net Wealth by either filing the Return of Net Wealth declaring lesser value or suppressing any portion of the Net Wealth, which has been brought to surface by resorting to investigation and enquiries by the Assessing Officer. 3. The assessees have also raised common additional grounds of appeals alongwith petition for admission of additional grounds as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax(Appeals) has failed to consider the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Anr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d bona fide reasons in the act of the assessees in not raising the additional grounds on an earlier occasion by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) wherein it was held that Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow additional ground to be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we admit the additional grounds in all the cases for adjudication. 3.2 In these cases, the assessees herein are owners of urban land which is liable for wealth tax. However, no returns of wealth have been filed by these assessees. Hence, penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Act was levied after giving reasonable opportunity of heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 142(1)/142(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 No. Dated: have concealed the particulars of your income of .or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income 2. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 10.30 AM, on 22/01/2018 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 18 of the Wealth tax Act, 1957. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered, before any such order is made under section 18. sd/- (Shiva Srinivas IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (Internationa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen from the above notice for imposing penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the irrelevant portion of the notice. In other words he has not specified whether he is levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2015) (11) TMI 1620 that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
