Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Ashok Parnami, Jaipur vs Dcwt, Circle 5, Jaipur, Jaipur on 31 January, 2023
vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,'A' JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
WTA Nos. 15,16,17, 19 &18/JP/2022
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 to 2013-14& 2014-15
Shri Ashok Parnami cuke The DCWT
M/s.Adarash Marketing Vs. Circle-5
314, Adarash Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABPPP 0203Q
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &
Shri Rohan Sogani, CA
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 31/01/2023
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The above mentioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against five different orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi-42 [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] dated 17-03-2022 for the assessment year 2 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 and dated 23-05-2022 for the assessment year 2013-14 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in most of the appeals are common. However, for the sake of convenience and brevity of the case, the grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 are enumerated as under:-
''1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that if the case of the assessee was not reopened u/s 17of the Wealth Tax Act, the wealth of assessee would have escaped assessment. The said findings is illegal and unjustified.
2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that intention of assessee and the factor that the assessee had acted in a bona fide manner is not a relevant fact for imposition of penalty. The said finding is illegal and unjustified.
3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs.52,991/- imposed u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. The penalty levied is illegal, unjustified and excessive. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
''7. Both grounds of appeal challenge the penalty imposed u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 The appellant has made following arguments:
-The assessee is regularly filing his Income-tax returns since last number of years and as his income was above Rs. 50.00 lacs he had filed details of all assets and liabilities as required under the Act, .
-The assessee was liable to pay wealth tax but he could not file the return of wealth in time on account of on account of preoccupation of work;3 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022
Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur
-There was reasonable cause for delay in filling returns and that that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of his wealth,
- In response to notices u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, the assessee had duly filedreturn of wealth and the returned wealth has been accepted.
8. It is observed that the appellant has admitted that at the time of filing of Income Tax Return, he was aware of his liability to file wealth tax return and to pay wealth tax but same was not done by appellant and was done only when notice u/s 17(1) was issued. If, the case of the appellant was not have reopened u/s 17 of W.T. Act. 1957, it would have got escaped assessment.
8.1 U/s 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act. 1957, penalty is attracted when the AO is satisfied that any person had concealed the particulars of his/her wealth or furnished inaccurate particulars of such wealth or where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total wealth of any person under this Act, such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false, or such person offers an explanation which he/she is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of her total wealth have been disclosed by him/her, then the penalty will be leviable section 18(1)(c) of the Act, 1957.
8.2 It is observed that the contention that could not file the return of wealth in time on account of on account of preoccupation of work; and thus he was prevented by a reasonable cause is legally without merit "Reasonable cause' is a good defence against may penalties, however, it is not a defence in the case of concealment penalty.
8.3 Regarding argument that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of theassessee to conceal the particulars of his wealth, it is observed that the intention ofan appellant is also not a relevant criteria while deciding the concealment penalty.The appellant has admitted that he did not file return of wealth in due time. It couldnot be a relevant factor that the appellant had acted bonafide and no malafidewasinvolved.
8.4 It is a settled law that in economic offences, the statutory liability to pay either duty or tax is nothing but a strict liability. For any violation of the law or rules relating to economic offences, either relating to the payment of duty or tax as the case may be, the theory of mens rea is not attracted. In such matters, the rules of interpretation contemplate a strict interpretation rather than a liberal and wider interpretation. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on penalty prescribed for a breach of acivil law such as tax laws is that the breach of civil obligation which attracts a penalty under the provisions of an Act would immediately attract the levy of penalty irrespective of the fact whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not, Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund [2006] 131 Comp Cas 591 (SC):4 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022
Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur [2006] 5 SCC 361 This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision dated 29.9.2008 in the case Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 308 ITR 277 (SC) holding that lovy of penalty is only a civil lability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient to be established before levy of penalty for concealment unlike the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. The Supreme Court has held that while considering an appeal against an order made u/s 271(1)(c), what is required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing penalty had before him and if that record can show that there has been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain the penalty.
8.5 It is also pertinent to refer to the case of Zoom Communication, delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (327 ITR 510) wherein the Court has held that if the assessee makes a claim which is incorrect in law, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. It reasoned as under.
20. The court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the Income-tax returns are picked up for scrutiny if the assesseo makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bona fide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self-assessment under section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have."
8.6 Further this case is directly covered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK DataP) Ltd. Vs CIT358 ITR 593 (SC)[2013] wherein the law has been laid that voluntary disclosure (in this case return was not voluntary and filed only after receipt of notice us 17 does not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) 8.7 In this background, it is observed that the appellant's case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in MAK Data (P) Ltd.(supra) and 5 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication (supra), and thus, this was a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The order of AO is confirmed. Both grounds are dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.'' 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeals of the assessee for which following written submission has been filed.
1. All the appeals have identical facts. The summarized position is as under
PENALTY NET WEALTH TOTAL INCOME WTA NO A.Y. IMPOSED UNDER RETURNED AS PER ROI WTA 15/JPR/2022 2010-11 82,99,100 52,991 2,12,13,100 16/JPR/2022 2011-12 1,01,02,000 71,020 2,56,28,680 17/JPR/2022 2012-13 1,44,98,200 1,14,982 2,93,43,960 18/JPR/2022 2014-15 1,43,04,100 1,13,041 3,10,53,290 19/JPR/2022 2013-14 1,30,04,300 1,00,040 2,92,80,130
2. Before the lower authorities, the assessee explained the bonafide of his not being able to file the Wealth Tax Returns in time. The said reasons are reproduced by Ld. CWT(A) in his order at Page 2, para 6.
3. Ld. CWT (A) has not controverted any of the reasons explained by the assessee to make a case of malafide against the assessee. Ld. CWT (A), on the other hand, has proceeded to confirm the penalty for the sole reason that the theory of mens rea is not attracted.
4. Ld. CWT (A) has placed very heavy reliance on the case of DHARMEDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & OTHERS [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC)
1. Ld. CWT(A) has misplaced his reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmedra Textile Processors & Others [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Ld. CWT (A) has misread the judgment. Hon'ble Apex Court has not at all held that mens rea is not essential.
6 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022
Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur
2. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. &Wvg. Mills [2009] 224 CTR 1 (SC) observed that conditions in section 271(1)(c), namely, concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particular, must be proved to levy penalty, demonstrated its intention that one's 'state of mind' had to be taken into account to see if that person wanted to contravene law by concealing income. Relevant extracts of the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is set out hereunder for the sake of ready reference: -
".....we need to examine the recent decision of this Court in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra). In almost every case relating to penalty, the decision is referred to on behalf of the revenue as if it laid down that in every case of non-payment or short payment of duty the penalty clause would automatically get attracted and the authority had no discretion in the matter. One of us (Aftab Alam.) J.) was a party to the decision in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra) and we see no reason to understand or read that decision in that manner. In Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra) the court framed the issues before it, in paragraph 2 of the decision....."
"...we fail to see how the decision in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra) can be said to hold that section 11AC would apply to every case of non-payment or short payment of duty regardless of the conditions expressly mentioned in the section for its application. There is another very strong reason for holding that Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra) could not have interpreted section 11AC in the manner as suggested because in that case that was not even the stand of the revenue." for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature...."
3. The proper analysis of the Dharmendra Textile Judgment has been done by the Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kanbay Software India (P.) Ltd. vs.DCIT [2009] 31 SOT 153 (PUNE). The relevant extracts are reproduced below for proper appreciation of the position even post Dharmendra Textile.Kanbay Software India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2009] 31 SOT 153 (PUNE):
"..The views expressed by Their Lordships in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra) cannot be viewed as an authority for the 7 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur proposition that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an automatic consequence of an addition being made to income of the taxpayer, for the reason that whether it is a civil liability or a criminal lability, penalty under section 271(1)(c) can only come into play when the conditions laid down under that section are to be satisfied. In view of the elaborate discussions in the preceding paragraphs, by no stretch of logic or rationale it could be said that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) has a cause and effect relationship with addition being made to the returned income per se. An addition being made to income does, because of impact of Explanation 1, effectively does raise a presumption against the assessee but that is an entirely rebuttal presumption and the scheme of rebuttal is provided in the Explanation itself..."In the light of the above discussions, and for the detailed reasons set out above, we are of the considered view that even post Dharamendra Textile Processors' judgment (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, merely because an addition is made to the income declared by the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. In our considered view, Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra) does not bring about any radical change in the scheme of section 271(1)(c) though it does nullify the earlier Division Bench judgment on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff judgment (supra) to the extent that it held that the onus was on the tax authorities to establish mens rea before a penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed proposition which, in the esteemed views of the larger Bench, did not take into account the correct scheme of things as these were more particularly of Explanation 1, as it exists now, to section 271(1)(c). Their Lordships have indeed held that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability but that expression used in contradistinction with criminal liability and, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in the case of Om Prakash Shiv Prakash (supra), there is no conflict a liability being a civil liability and at the same time being penal in character. Effect, therefore, liability under section 271(1)(c) continues to have its basic per character even as it is held to be a civil liability..."
5. The other case laws relied by Ld. CWT (A) are also not relevant for the issue at hand. These case laws are distinguished below -
1. ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. [2010] 191 TAXMAN 179 (DELHI) 8 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur Facts: Assessee claimed certain expenditure of capital nature in its return of income. Further assessee also debited the amount of "Income Tax paid" in the profit and loss account. When the assessee was confronted with these errors by the AO, then the assessee claimed that these were bonafide mistakes committed by the assessee.
a. In the above case Capital Expenditure was claimed as Revenue Expenditure which honourable High Court found to be clear cut case of intent to avoid tax as no two views were possible for the erroneous claim made by assessee.
b. The appellant in the present case has not claimed any part of his wealth to be exempt from wealth tax which has been detected and brought to tax by Ld. AO. The assessment is completed on Net Wealth Tax Returned by assessee.
Zoom distinguished by the Bombay HC in the below mentioned case:
c. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd [2015] 61 taxmann.com 200 (Bombay HC) The case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Mr. Chhotaray is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case the Assessee had conceded before Assessing Officer that its action of claiming revenue deductions was not correct at all. It was not the case of the Assessee therein, throughout the proceedings, that the deductions carried out by the Assessee was a debatable issue. The Delhi High Court noted that even before it the Assessee could not explain the circumstances and its conduct...."
d. S.M. Construction INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2013 (Bombay HC) "The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the respondent could be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide. In this case it is not the case of revenue that the Claimmade by the petitioner was not on the basis of bonafide view. We find that on appreciation of the facts, two authorities have concurrently come to finding of fact that there was 9 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur complete disclosure of facts and the claim made though not found acceptable was bonafide to conclude that no penalty be visited on respondent-assessee..."
2. Ld. CWT(A) has also completely misplaced his reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. In the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd., certain documents pertaining to share applications were found during the course of survey. When the assesse company was confronted with these documents surrender was made. Also the assessee company could not offer any explanation for the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
However, in the case of appellant, in the present case, assessee had disclosed the details of his assets in the ITR Form itself. There is no case of lower authorities that detection of net wealth was on the basis of external evidences gathered by department.
3. The Chairman, Sebi vs Shriram Mutual Fund &Anr [2006] 68 SCL 216 (SC) Ld. CWT (A) also misplaced his reliance on this decision. The said decision relates to penalty under the provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. In the said case, the mutual fund had exceeded the quantitative restriction prescribed under the law in respective of dealing with individual broker. This breach was conclusively established. The Honourable Supreme Court also held that it was wilful violation of statutory provisions. This law, in the opinion of Honourable Supreme Court was for safeguarding interest of investors. Honourable Supreme Court observed that respondents had given undue and unfair advantage to associated brokers which is detrimental to the interest of the unit holders. Under these circumstances the penalty was upheld by Honourable Supreme Court.
As against the above, the alleged offense in the present case is non filling of return of wealth. Tax on which is fully paid by assessee. There is no public interest like that of unit holders is involved. Thus the case decided by Honourable Supreme court and relied by Ld. CWT (A) was altogether in different context.
6. During the course of appellate proceedings reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncement :
1. CT V Pushpendra Surana 264 CTR 204 (Raj) 10 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur Para 6, In our considered view the CIT (A) and so also the Tribunal both have considered the matter, in detail and finally arrived at -
conclusion that the income declared by the assessee from the long- term capital gain by selling agricultural land disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of income was accepted by the assessing authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that there was an inaccurate particular of income that was made the basis for inflicting penalty upon the assessee in exercise of powers conferred under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
2. Ld. CWT (A) has ignored the above judicial pronouncement in spite of being of Jurisdiction High Court without distinguishing the same.
7. Details of Schedule AL as retuned in ITR Form of A.Y. 2016-17 is as under:
11 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022
Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur In view of above, the penalty imposed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CWT (A) are bad in law and therefore deserved to be quashed by allowing appeals of the assessee.
FOR A.Y. 2013-14 In addition to above grounds for all the years theassesse, for AY 2013-14, before ld. CWT(A) , took one additional ground challenging the action of ld. AO of initiating penalty without specifying the limb in which penalty was proposed (CWT(A) Order Page 2).
The submissions, in this regard, as appearing at page 4 of CWT(A) Order were made, however, the same were not considered in correct perspective. In view of above, the penalty imposed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CWT (A) are bad in law and therefore deserved to be quashed by allowing the appeal of the assessee.'' Further during the course of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission so filed, submitted that the valuation of gold ornaments was pending and it has affected delay or non-filing of the Wealth Tax Return, as the ornaments are required to be taken out from the security of the assessee's security and his wife possession. She was seriously ill and undergoing medical treatment who subsequently passed away. After coming to know about the seriousness of the issue in question, the assessee had taken out the ornaments and obtained the valuation of the gold ornaments and upon receipt the same, also filed the Wealth Tax Return and also paid the taxes alongwith interest thereon. The assessment of wealth tax was completed without making any adjustments to the return of income filed by the assessee. The ld. AR further explained before us that the details of wealth tax which is charged to be under wealth tax return are already forming part 12 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur of the income tax records and nothing adverse is found in the balance sheet of the assessee as had been contended by the Revenue. Therefore, the liability which has been discharged by the assessee later along with the interest was also supported by the genuine facts placed on record and the same is not disputed by the lower authority. It is also not disputed that the assessee is in addition to the family and business responsibility is also discharging function as Member of Legislative Assembly. The reasons caused for the delayed compliance has been explained and no contrary finding and controverting facts were argued before us by the revenue as to the issue in question. Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no mens rea of the assessee and the loss of the revenue is already compensatedby the interest by the assessee and no concealment of the wealth alleged to have been placed by the assessee in addition to the return of wealth filed by the assessee. To drive home to these contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws.
1. Union of India vs Rajasthan Spg,.&Wvg. Mills (2009) 224 CTR 1 (SC)
2. Kanbay Software India (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 31 SOT 153 (Pune)
3. CIT Vs PushpendraSurana , 264 CTR 204 (Raj) 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and vehemently argued that the ld.AR has not explained as to how the Wealth Tax Return was not filed even though the assessee has filed the 13 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur Income Tax Return. The defense taken by the ld. AR is thus, not maintainable. It is a deliberate action on the part of the assessee for not filing the Wealth Tax Return even though the specific liability exists on the assessee. Therefore, the ld. DR relied upon the decisionsof Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication, 327 ITR 510 (Del) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) and thus both the cases are squarely applicable upon the assessee. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable. The ld. DR has also relied upon the following case laws.
1. CIT vs Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd. 16 Taxman 224 (Patna)
2. CIT vs Smt. Kaushalya , 75 Taxman 549 (Bom)
3. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corp. vs DCIT 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai Bench)
4. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (OSD-III) (ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21-03-2017) 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record, orders of the lower authorities, arguments of both the parties and also perused the decision cited by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the wealth tax return u/s 14(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Therefore, notice u/s 17(1) was issued on 28- 03-2017. In response, the return was filed declaring net wealth of Rs.82,99,100/-. The assessment u/s 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Act was made at Rs.82,99,100/-. Penalty 14 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur proceedings u/s 16(1)© of theWealth Tax Act were initiated for concealment of wealth. The AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and thus imposed penalty of Rs. 52,991/- u/s 18(1)©. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals of the assessee confirming the order of the AO. Now before us, we find that the assessee had filed the income tax return in the status of individual and the assessee is regularly filling his income tax return since long time and his income was above Rs.50 lacs therefore, he had filed details of all assets and liabilities as required under the Act. Assessment for most of the years are regularly being completed under the provision of Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee was liable to pay wealth tax but, he could not file the return of wealth in time on account of serious ill health of his wife who subsequently passed away due to cancer disease. The assessee was Member of Legislative Assemblysince and it is because of that preoccupation in addition to the regular business and family responsibility, he could not comply with the provisions of Wealth Tax and filed his return subsequently. Further the value of jewellery belonging to the assessee was over Rs.5.00 lacs therefore, the return of wealth had to be supported with the report of approved valuer of the ornaments/jewellery and the assessee could obtain the valuation report but ultimately only in Dec. 2016. The ld. AR submitted that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the return but there was no deliberate 15 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of his wealth. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee tried to distinguish the judgements Zoom Communication and Mak Data (P) Ltd. (supra) that there was no bona fide contention of the assessee in those cases whereas in this case the assessee has proved his bona fide and the reasons attributable for delay in compliance.Therefore, we are in agreement with the contentions of the reasonableness of the reasons of not filling the wealth tax return by the assessee. Since, there appears no concealment of wealth on the part of the assessee as the revenue has not assessed in further wealth in addition to what has been filed by the assessee by way wealth tax return. Thus, the delay if any is bonafide compensated to the revenue by way interest and the assessment are completed based on the information already on record. Considering these facts and specific circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that based on the facts of the case levy of the penalty is not sustainable and therefore directed to be deleted. Simultaneously, in the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14, the ld. AR of the assessee has taken ground that limb of the penalty is not mentioned and it is a technical breach. The raising of this ground has no importance as the appeal of the assessee has been allowed in view of the deliberation on merits. It is worthwhile to mention that since the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is allowed, therefore, the decision taken by us in the appeal for the 2010-11shall apply mutatis mutandis 16 WTA NO.15/JP/2022 to 19/JP/2022 Shri Ashok Parnami vs ACWT, Circle5, Jaipur in the appeals for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15. Thus, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
3.0 In the result, the above-mentionedappeals of the assessee areallowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai)
U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:-31/01/2023
*Mishra
vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- Shri Ashok Parnami, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCWT, Circle-5, Jaipur
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (WTA No. 15 to 19/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar