TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of purpose and object, and therefore, proposition of law laid down by various higher judicial forums would be applicable on the same analogous in the cases of proceedings under section 18(1)(c) of the Act as well. Therefore, the impugned order is not in line of law laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, and hence not sustainable. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding this order of the AO. We allow this appeal of the assessee and quash the penalty order- Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - WTA No.02/RJT/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2021 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President And Shri Amarjit Sinh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri G.R. Sanghvi, AR For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: Present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against order of the ld.Commissioner of Wealth-Tax(A)-2, Rajkot dated 19.5.2017 passed under section 23A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 2011-12 by which the ld.CWT(A) confirmed action of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty of ₹ 56,780/- under section 18(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerging from the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereas in the proceedings penalty has been levied on the charge of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It was submitted that the flip-flop on the part of the AO was very much apparent that on one hand penalty was initiated under one default and on the other hand, the same was considered to be levied under another default. It was submitted that the WTO has treated both these distinctive charges as if they were interchangeable and optional without appreciating that both these charges stand on an independent footing and cannot be applied as an option to each other. Therefore, since the very foundation for levying penalty was very much absent in the case of the assessee, the action of the Revenue authorities could not be sustained. It was further pleaded that the settled law on this issue is that penalty can be levied only on the charge for which it was initiated, and the Revenue cannot turn-around and levy penalty on another default, which was contemplated in the notice. It was further pleaded that in the quantum proceedings the assessee has filed all the relevant details and the wealth has been assessed as returned by the assessee. In the quantum proceedings or in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st be mentioned, and both the penalty notice and order cannot be distinctive and separate as to reason and charge, based on which, penalty is to be levied. In other words, when the proceedings are initiated on one charge, then the penalty cannot be levied and confirmed on any other charge. Since the ld.WTO has made a fundamental error in the penalty order, the same cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law, such order liable to be quashed and cancelled. 4. On the other hand, the ld.DR supported orders of the Revenue authorities. The ld.CWT(A) has justified the finding of the AO on the ground that assessee has not filed return of wealth and failed to disclose full and true value of wealth. It was only after receipt of notice under section 17 of the WT Act, she has filed the return. There is no question of ambiguity in the penalty order of the WTO as the WTO has clearly spelt out in the order that the act of assessee for not furnishing the return of wealth within the stipulated time is treated as concealing the particulars of net wealth chargeable to wealth tax, and therefore, there is no flip-flop as contended by the assessee in the action of the WTO. Mere technical or clerical mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de an opportunity to explain as to why penalty be not imposed. If an Assessing Officer used expression or in between the concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars, then that show cause notice be not fatal to the proceedings, but while visiting the assessee with penalty the ld.AO ought to have recorded a specific finding, for which breach, he has visited the assessee with penalty i.e. whether he has visited the assessee with penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty order he cannot use both the expression. The discussion made by the Hon ble Court in para-9 is worth to note. It reads as under: 9. Regarding the contention that the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, we may record that though in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did order initiation of penalty on both counts, in the ultimate order of penalty that he passed, he clearly held that levy of penalty is sustained in view of the fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income. Thus insofar a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
