TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was required to furnish the return of wealth as on March 31, 1972, on or before July 31, 1972. The return was filed on January 14, 1976, and thus there was a delay of 41 months. In the return submitted by the assessee, net wealth of Rs. 91,704 was declared but the assessment was made at a figure of Rs. 74,596 (sic). The main dispute is with regard to the property situated at Ajmer which was declared at a figure of Rs. 85,200, but the value of which was enhanced by the Wealth-tax Officer to Rs. 1,70,000. The basis for such enhancement was that the assessee entered into a contract of sale of such building on February 3, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. This agreement did not materialise but th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed by the Tribunal that the house was always valued on the rent capitalisation method and, therefore, the transaction of sale which has subsequently taken place after the valuation date should not be taken into account and there will be a marginal difference in the wealth of the assessee for which no penalty could be levied. It may be noted that, in the quantum appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax has reduced the value of the property by Rs. 15,000. The submission of learned counsel for the Revenue is that there was no reasonable cause and the Income-tax Tribunal has erred in setting aside the penalty. The matter whether there is reasonable cause or not is a question of fact and this point has already been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the past had been on rent capitalisation method. In the present case, in the quantum appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the valuation was reduced by a sum of Rs. 15,000. It is not known as to whether the matter was taken to the Tribunal or not because the amount of tax involved was only Rs. 607. The finding which has been given by the Tribunal is primarily one of fact and cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 12,423 levied under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
