COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KUKU NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON being moved by the Revenue under S. 27(1) of the WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 (for short the Act), the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench -C (for short the Tribunal), has referred following question for opinion of this Court :

(2.) FACTUAL position, as stated in the statement of the case, is as follows : For the asst. year 1971 -72, assessee filed her return declaring net wealth of Rs. 1,36,083. The WTO completed the assessment on a total wealth of Rs. 1,71,040. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed two omissions on the part of the assessee. First omission related to remuneration receivable from M/s J. Bond and Co. (P) Ltd. amounting to Rs. 18,700 and the second one related to income from boats receivable, amounting to Rs. 3.252 which was disclosed at Rs. 1,134. A number of other minor additions were also made while computing the wealth. AO was of the view that there was concealment of particulars in respect of assets or that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars thereby attracting levy of penalty provisions of S. 18(1)(c) of the Act. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee. Since difference between the declared wealth and the assessed wealth exceeded Rs 25,000, the AO referred the matter to the IAC under S. 18(3) of the Act for finalisation of penalty proceedings. In response to the notice issued by the IAC, assessee submitted her explanation. After considering the same, the IAC levied penalty in respect of the two items referred to above. The matter was, carried in appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee. It was contended that there was bona fide omission and there was no conscious concealment of wealth and no contumacious conduct was involved. The Revenue's stand was that there was deliberate concealment and/or omission, clearly attracting the provisions of S. 18(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee that the omissions were bona fide and cancelled the notice. It was inter alia observed by it as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue submitted that the factual position as highlighted by the AO clearly established that there was an attempt by the assessee to conceal wealth and/or to omit it and, therefore, penal provisions were clearly attracted. There is no appearance on the part of the assessee in spite of service of notice.