TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the penalty levied under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the department has not established that the assessee had concealed his wealth in the return filed by him when the assessee's value was far less than that fixed by the assessee's valuer ? (3) Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee is not guilty of concealment of wealth is based on relevant and valid consideration and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ? The respondent in T.C.Ps. Nos. 112 to 115 of 1976 is one S. Venugopala Konar and these four petitions relate to four assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70, T.C.Ps. Nos. 116 and 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a period of five years, was arrived at at Rs. 1,89,472. But the Wealth-tax Officer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 2,40,000 and spread over that cost for the four years in question as follows : Assessment year Amount Rs. 1966-67 1,30,000 1967-68 1,80,000 1968-69 2,10,000 1969-70 2,40,000 It is with reference to the difference between the value so arrived at by him and the value shown by the assessees that the proceedings were taken for the purpose of imposing penalty. The Tribunal held that the department had not placed any materials to show that the cost of construction as debited in the books was in any way incorrect and that it was only a case of estimate by the department of such cost of construction. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , still no principle or basis was brought to our notice to justify the action of the department in spreading the said total cost over the period of four years in question at the particular amounts on the respective valuation dates as it has actually done in these cases. If so, there was no scope for finding that the assessees had suppressed the real value as on the different valuation dates so as to render themselves liable to penalty. In view of these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error of law, and, therefore, the questions extracted already cannot be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, these petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
