COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SAVITRI DAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 467 of 1984. The assessee is Smt. Savitri. She filed return of her wealth under Section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act for the year 1973-74 and for the year 1975-76 in her status as an individual. In the return filed, her share in a plot at South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, was not disclosed. Later, she disclosed that the plot was purchased jointly by her and her husband who was also an assessee. The plot was disclosed in the return filed by her husband under Section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act. When pointed out that she too had a share in the plot, she added the value of her share in her return. She was then asked to explain this omission and also to show cause why penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act be not imposed on her for concealment of the particulars of her wealth. In answer, the assessee stated that the revised return was voluntarily filed and the omission was bona fide. Her explanation had been that since the plot was purchased jointly in the names of her husband and herself and since her husband had included the plot in his return, she did not include it in her return, although the sale deed stood jointly in her name as also in the name of her husband. The Wealth-tax Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 19,000 for each of the assessment years holding that the assessee concealed her wealth, which concealment was revealed during investigation. He also found that the subsequent disclosure was not voluntary. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld that order impbsing penalty. In further appeal by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, she succeeded. Her explanation found favour with the Tribunal which allowed the assessee's appeals. The penalties imposed for both the assessment years were set aside. While so doing, the Tribunal held that the revised return was voluntary and without any notice. The Department then filed an application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, requiring the Tribunal to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :

(2.) THE Tribunal refused to make any reference, holding that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. This order was made by the Tribunal on April 7, 1984, and was served on the petitioner on July 12, 1984. THE present application before this court has been filed on September 9, 1984, for a direction to call for a reference from the Tribunal in terms stated above.

(3.) SHRI Rawat, learned counsel for the Department, however, relied upon a decision in CWT v. Ajay Kumar B. Tody [1983] 143 ITR 148 (MP) and yet another decision in the same volume at page 178 (CWT v. Chandmal Surajmal). In the first, case, at page 148, the finding is that the observation of the Tribunal on whether the liabilities were contingent or certain was a tricky question of law and related to the interpretation of certain statutes and, therefore, the calculations made by the assessees at a lower figure did not indicate concealment of particulars of wealth. That was held to be a finding of fact and the penalty was cancelled. This case, instead of helping the petitioner, is somewhat in favour of the respondent. In the latter case, at page 178 also, this court observed that on the finding of the Tribunal there was no concealment, so far as the assessee was concerned. He had disclosed all the facts and, therefore, that question did not arise at all for reference to the High Court as a question of law. These two decisions, therefore, do not help the petitioner at all, since we find from the Tribunal's order that the conclusion that no particulars of wealth were concealed and the revised return was voluntary was based upon the facts of the case and is, therefore, a finding of fact. No question of law, therefore, arises for a reference from the Tribunal's order.