COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. GHEVARCHAND B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of the Revenue as well as the assessee to draw up a statement of the case and refer certain questions of law that are said to arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter called "the Tribunal"), for the opinion of this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal, by its order dated February 26, 1979, referred the following two questions :

(2.) AT the outset, we may mention that the respondent/assessee, though served with notice, has not taken any steps either to appear in person or through counsel. To decide the second question referred to above, certain facts are necessary, namely, whether the assessee has taken any steps to challenge the order of the Tribunal confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the absence of the assessee or counsel for the assessee bringing to the notice of this court any subsequent development regarding the steps taken to challenge the order of the Tribunal confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c), we are not in a position to answer the second question. Therefore, we return the second question unanswered, confining ourselves in this reference to the first question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, both on merits and on the quantum of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took note of the findings rendered by the Tribunal in the income-tax assessment for the very same year in respect of the very same assessee and held that the assessee did not disclose the sum of Rs. 1,90,000 as his wealth in the wealth-tax proceedings. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal, following the decisions of the Calcutta and Kerala High Courts in CWT v. Bansidhar Poddar [1978] 112 ITR 957 AND C. K. Babu Naidu v. WTO [1978] 112 ITR 341, respectively, in preference to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara [1974] 93 ITR 288, held as follows :