TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-petitioner assessee filed his wealth-tax return relating to the assessment year 1967-68 on March 31, 1969, declaring a net wealth of Rs. 1,00,000. Subsequently, on June 23, 1971, he filed a revised return declaring net wealth of Rs. 1,87,359. By order dated June 30, 1971, the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment on a net wealth of Rs. 2,45,417, but subsequently the said assessment order was rectified by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 35 of the Act and the net wealth of the assessee for the said year was computed at Rs. 1,97,716. After completing the assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 18(1)(c) of the Act, but since the penalty leviable exceeded the pecuniary jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been rebutted by the assessee and, therefore, the penalty had been rightly imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal held that from the facts, it was clear that the original returns were filed suo motu and bona fide on estimate basis and later on when the assessee was able to collect the relevant data, he filed revised returns declaring his net wealth on the first date of hearing voluntarily and that by these dates of the filing of the revised returns, the wealth-tax Officer had not discovered any mistake in the original returns. According to the Tribunal, the failure to return the correct wealth did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect and the lapse, if any, was unintentional. The Tribunal further foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration. According to the Tribunal, the said finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal could not be said to be contrary to the weight on the record or having been arrived at without considering the entire evidence on record. The Tribunal has held that the said finding was arrived at after considering all the facts and material evidence on record. The Tribunal further held that the question whether the statutory presumption is rebutted by evidence or not, is always a question of fact. The Tribunal, therefore, held that no question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order and, therefore, rejected the application submitted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Thereupon the Commissioner has filed these applications. In Wealth-tax Reference Case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cations submitted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 27(1) of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has placed reliance on the Explanation to section 18(1)(c) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time. The said Explanation provided that in case where the net wealth returned by any person was less than 75% of the net wealth as assessed under section 16 or section 17, then such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct value of the asset or, as the case may be, the correct value of the debt or correct net wealth, did not arise from any fraud or from any gross or wilful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of assets o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
