W.T.O. WARD-2(2), Nagpur V. OFFOCER IN CHARGE OF WARDS, SR. BHONSALA ESTATE, Nagpur

WTA 1/NAG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8898 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAVE
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER WTA NO.1/NAG./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200708 ) WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), NAGPUR . APPELLANT V/S OFFICER IN CHARGE COURTS OF WARDS SR. BHONSALA ESTATE C/O DY. COLLECTOR (REVENUE) COLLECTOR OFFICE, CIVIL LINES NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AAAHO0465K . RESPONDENT WTA NO.2/NAG./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), NAGPUR . APPELLANT V/S OFFICER IN CHARGE COURTS OF WARDS SR. BHONSALA ESTATE C/O DY. COLLECTOR (REVENUE) COLLECTOR OFFICE, CIVIL LINES NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AAAHO0465K . RESPONDENT WTA NO.3/NAG./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200910 ) WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), NAGPUR . APPELLANT V/S OFFICER IN CHARGE COURTS OF WARDS SR. BHONSALA ESTATE C/O DY. COLLECTOR (REVENUE) COLLECTOR OFFICE, CIVIL LINES NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AAAHO0465K . RESPONDENT 2 COURTS OF WARDS WTA NO.4/NAG./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201011 ) WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), NAGPUR . APPELLANT V/S OFFICER IN CHARGE COURTS OF WARDS SR. BHONSALA ESTATE C/O DY. COLLECTOR (REVENUE) COLLECTOR OFFICE, CIVIL LINES NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AAAHO0465K . RESPONDENT WTA NO.5/NAG./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201112 ) WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), NAGPUR . APPELLANT V/S OFFICER IN CHARGE COURTS OF WARDS SR. BHONSALA ESTATE C/O DY. COLLECTOR (REVENUE) COLLECTOR OFFICE, CIVIL LINES NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AAAHO0465K . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI A.R. NINAVE ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING 22.03.2017 DATE OF ORDER 27.03 .2017 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, J.M. THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER 2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)2, NAGPUR, PERTA INING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200708, 200809, 200910, 2001011 AND 2011 12 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE, ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN T O THE SAME ASSESEE 3 COURTS OF WARDS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL, THE SAME WER E CLUBBED TOGETHER FOR HEARING. 2. THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 22.3.2017. O N THE SAID DATE WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, WE RECEI VED AN APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE FOR SHORT ADJO URNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SOME TECHNICAL FORMALITIES IN CONNECTIO N WITH THESE CASES ARE YET TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE OFFICE. WE NOTIC ED THAT THE IN ALL THE FIVE CASES, THE COMMON ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 18(1)(C) O F THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) IS LEVIABLE IN CASE THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED ONLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BY THE AUTHO RITIES CONCERNED. SINCE, THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE CASES IS LEGAL, WHICH CAN BE ADJUDICATED WITHOUT HEARING THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE , WE REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AFTER HEARING TH E LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. SINCE, THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL (EXCEPT THE AMOUNT INVO LVED) WE TAKE THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 AS LEAD CASE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF WEALTH/ASSETS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, ACCORDINGLY, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE ACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE OF THE SAID NOTICE, FURTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 16(4) WAS ISSUED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND IN RESPONSE THEREOF RETURN OF W EALTH WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING TOTAL WEALTH OF ` 4,25,74,700. THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FILED REVISED RET URN DECLARING THE NET WEALTH AT ` 3,34,49,000, CONTENDING ERROR IN ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THOUGH THE REVISED RETU RN IS INVALID AS THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 17, THE FAC T REMAINS THAT THE NET WEALTH CHARGEABLE TO WEALTH IS CORRECT AS PER THE R EVISED WEALTH 4 COURTS OF WARDS RETURN. ACCORDINGLY, THE RETURN OF WEALTH FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER COMPUTATION IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 18(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN REPLY STATING THAT SINCE THE WEALTH RETURN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, QUESTION OF CO NCEALMENT OF WEALTH DOES NOT ARISE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT T HE ASSESSEE BEING A COLLECTOR, IS THE OFFICERINCHARGE OF THE COURT OF WARDS SENIOR BHOSALA ESTATE AND REMAINED BUSY WITH THE ADMINISTRA TIVE WORKS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. FURTHER IN CONNECTION W ITH A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST AN OFFICIAL OF ESTATE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE B UILDING OF THE SAID ESTATE REMAINED SEALED UP TO JANUARY 2012. TO SUBST ANTIATE ITS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JU DGMENTS/DECISIONS: I) CIT V/S SUSAIKALYAN MANDAPAM P. LTD. [2004] 271 ITR 138 (MAD.); II) INDIA CINE AGENCIES V/S CIT, [2005] 275 ITR 430 (MA D.) III) BHARAT RICE MILL V/S CIT, [2005] 148 TAXMAN 145 (AL L.) IV) NASA CONTINENTAL EXPORT LTD. V/S CIT, [2002] 124 TA XMAN 172 (HYD.); V) T. ASHOK PAI V/S CIT, [2007] 161 TAXMAN 342 (SC); VI) K.C. BUILDERS V/S CIT, [2004] 135 TAXMAN 461 (SC); VII) DILIP M. SHROFF V/S CIT, [2007] 161 TAXMAN 222 (SC) ; VIII) UNION OF INDIA V/S DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, [ 2008] 306 ITR 227; IX) UNION OF INDIA V/S RAJASTHAN SPG. WVG. MILLS [2009] 180 TAXMAN 609. X) CIT V/S RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS, [2010] 3 TAXMANN.C OM 47. 5 COURTS OF WARDS 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 3,34,49,000, UNDER SECTION 18(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE MADE BEF ORE THE AO AND FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURN WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION; THAT ONCE T HE RETURN IS ACCEPTED AS CORRECT, NO QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT DOE S ARISE; THAT DELAY IN FILING RETURN WAS CAUSED DUE TO THE CIRCUM STANCES BEYOND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, INTEREST UNDER SECT ION 17B HAS ALREADY BEEN LEVIED NO LOSS HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE AND THAT THERE WAS NO PERSONAL INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLV ED IN NOT FILING THE WEALTH RETURN WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 18(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. 6. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 18 (1)(C) OF WEALTH TAX ACT,1957 IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS VI OLATED THE PROVISIONS U/S 14 OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 BY NOT FILING RETURN OF WEALTH U/S 14 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 DESPITE HAVING NET TAXABLE WEA LTH AND HAD FILED WEALTH TAX RETURN ONLY AFTER ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 17 OF W EALTH TAX ACT, 1957. 6 COURTS OF WARDS 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIO LATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF THE ACT BY NOT FILING THE WEALTH R ETURN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT NONFIL ING OF RETURN OF WEALTH AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF WEALTH WHICH ATTRA CTS SECTION 18(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7.0 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT, THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE AO AND THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. 7.1 THE APPELLANT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ENCLOSE D WITH THE FORM NO.35 OF APPEAL MEMO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DE LAY IN FILING THE RETURNS OF WEALTH WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF TH E APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE COLLECTO R IS THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE OF COURT OF WARDS SR. BHOSLA ESTATE WHO B EING VERY BUSY IN HIS ADMINISTRATIVE WORKS COULD NOT GET HARDLY AN Y TIME TO LOOK AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE COURT OF WARDS SR.BHOSLA ESTATE. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A SUIT FOR PARTITION IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE, SR.DIVISION SINC E FROM 1961. IN THE YEAR 1984 THE PARTITION DEGREE WAS PASSED AND A LL THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WERE HANDED OVER TO THE MEMBER S OF THE HUF. SINCE FROM 1984 THE MEMBERS ARE ENJOYING THE I NCOME AND WEALTH OF THEIR SHARE. IN THE YEAR 1984 THE OFFICE OF THE OFFICER IN CHARGE COURT OF WARDS SR. BHOSLA ESTATE WAS WINDED UP. THE SAID COMPROMISE DEGREE WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THERE AFTER CIVIL JUDGE, SR. DIVISION HAS APPOINTED P.H. MUDHOLKAR, A RETIRED TEHSILDAR AS MANGER WHO DIED. THERE AFTER T HRE WAS NO REGULAR MANAGER APPOINTED FOR SR. BHOSLA ESTTE AND THE CHARGE OF MANAGER WAS GIVEN TO THE NAYAB TEHSILDAR WHO IS A G OVERNMENT SERVANT. IN THE MEANWHILE THE CLERK OF THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE COURT OF WARDS SR.BHOSLA ESTATE HAS COMMITTED MISAPPROPRI ATION OF FUNDS AND ALSO INDULGED INTO CERTAIN OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVI TIES IN RESPECT OF THE ESTATE. THE SAID MATTER WAS REPORTED WITH THE P OLICE 7 COURTS OF WARDS DEPARTMENT ON 13.06.2008 AND SINCE THEN THE POLICE AUTHORITY HAS SEALED THE OFFICE OF THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE COURT OF WARDS SR.BHOSLA ESTATE SITUATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CIV IL LINES, NAGPUR. THE SAID ESTATE REMAINED SEALED TILL JANUARY 2012 A ND BY THAT TIME ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS LYI NG IN THE OFFICE OF THE SR.BHOSLA ESTATE PREMISES WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE MEANTIME PART-TIME MANAGER WAS APPOINTED WHO HAS CO MPLETED THE REQUIREMENTS OF FILING THE RETURNS. THUS THE AP PELLANT HAS PLEADED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS OF WEA LTH WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. 7.2 THE APPELLANT THUS HAS CONTENDED THAT THE COL LECTOR BEING THE INCHARGE OF COURT OF WARDS, SR. BHOSLA ESTATE HAD NO ILL INTENTION TO MAKE A DELAY IN FILING THE ABOVE RETURNS. HENCE, THERE IS NO MENS REA TO DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS. THE APPELL ANT HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S16(3)/16(4) HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT AND AS SUCH NO CONCEALMENT IS EMBEDDED IN THE RETURNS FILED AS THE RE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED WEALTH AND THE ASSE SSED WEALTH, THEREFORE, THE LD.AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING TH E CONCEALMENT PENALTY AS THERE EXISTS NEITHER THE MENS REA NOR CO NCEALMENT OF WEALTH. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUSAI KALYAN MANDAPAM PVT.LTD, 271 ITR 138 (MAD.), BHARAT RICE MILLS VS. CIT., 148 TAXMAN 145 (ALL.) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF INDIA CINE AGENCIES VS. CIT, 275 ITR 430 (MAD.). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THESE CASES HAVE HELD THAT ME NS REA IS THE EVIL INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WRONGFULNESS OF THE ACT THAT PERSON COMMITS, IF THE PERSON HAD DONE DELIBERATELY OR HAS A GUILTY MIND IN COMMITTING THE DEFAULT. 7.3 IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT FO R LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY U/S 18(1) (C) OF THE W.T. ACT, 1957, IT IS NECESSARY THAT CONCEALMENT IS PROVED BASED ON THE I NFORMATION EMANATED FROM THE RETURNS OF WEALTH FILED. IT MAY B E EITHER CONCEALMENT OF WEALTH OR HAVING FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS CF WEALTH BY AN ASSESSEE. BUT IN BOTH THE SITUATIONS T HE CONCEALMENT NEEDS TO BE PROVED WITH THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES . ON PERUSAL OF THIS PENALTY ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD .A.O. HAS LEVIED THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE R ETURNS WERE FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS AND ONLY AFTER I SSUE OF NOTICES U/S 16(3) AND 16(4) OF THE ACT. THE WORD 'CONCEALMENT' IN THE STATUTE MEANS INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF TRUTH OR THE FACT, KNOWN TO BE INJURY OR PREJUDICE TO ANOTHER. THUS ACCORDING TO T HE APPELLANT, AN ELEMENT OF DELIBERATENESS IS EMBEDDED IN THE WORD ' CONCEALMENT'. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECI SION OF NASA CONTINENTAL EXPORT LTD. VS. CIT, 124 TAXMAN 172 (HY D.) AND IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI VS. CIT, 161 TAXMAN 342 (SC) . IN THESE JUDGMENTS THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT EVEN MERE FURNI SHING OF 8 COURTS OF WARDS DELIBERATE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF WEALTH IS NOT CONCEALMENT UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THROUGH SOME INDEPENDENT C ORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES TO BE GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T OR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, NO SUCH ATTEMPT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD. A.O. EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS OR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS CONTEN DED THAT THE CONCEALMENT OF WEALTH AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS ARE DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPE LLANT HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF K.C. BUILDERS V/S CIT, 135 TAXMA N 461 (SC). 7.4 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF V/S CIT (2007) 161 TAXMAN 221 (SC). IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OB SERVED THAT A CONCEALMENT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 18(1)(C) MAY BE I MPOSED, ONLY IF IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY M ADE THE CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS WEALTH. IN LATER DECISION, IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. D HARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSOR 306 ITR 277 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT HAD D ISAPPROVED THE NOTION THAT WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS ESSENTIAL FO R ATTRACTING CONCEALMENT PENALTY. IN THIS CASE THE LARGER BENCH HAS HELD THAT PENALTY U/S 18(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIABILITY, HENCE WI LLFUL CONCEALMENT EVEN IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. HOWEVER, IN ITS SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJASTHAN SPG.& WVG. MILLS, 180 TAXMAN 609 (SC) , THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THEIR PREVIOUS DECISION IN DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSOR'S CASE (SUPRA) MUST NOT BE UNDERS TOOD TO MEAN THAT MERE NON-PAYMENT OR SHORT PAYMENT OF TAX WOULD INEVITABLY LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THUS THE SUPREME COU RT HAS HELD THAT MENS REA IS NOT ESSENTIAL IN CIVIL MATTERS BUT THE AO MUST ASCERTAIN FIRST WHETHER THE CONDITIONS EXISTS FOR I MPOSITION OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY U/S 18(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/ S RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (2010) 3 TAXMAN 47 (SC) HAS FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT SECTION 18(1)(C) APPLIES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CON CEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS WEALTH OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH WEALTH. 7.5 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL FACTS, I T IS SEEN THAT THERE EXISTS NO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF WEALTH IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT. THE LD .AO HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURNED WEALTH WITHOUT ANY VARIATION. APART THAT, THE LD.AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY SORT OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THE CONCEALMENT AS PROVIDED U/S 18( 1)(C) R.W EXPLANATION APPENDED TO IT. THE MERE DELAY IN FILIN G RETURN OF WEALTH CANNOT BE A SOLE GROUND FOR LEVY OF CONCEALM ENT PENALTY UNLESS CONCEALMENT IS PROVED FROM RETURN OF WEALTH FILED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ASSIGNED COGENT REASONS FOR DELA Y IN FURNISHING THE RETURNS WHICH APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE. THEREFO RE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISI ONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NO T A FIT CASE FOR 9 COURTS OF WARDS LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. THE PENALTY LEVIED IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 8.0 GROUND NO.5 : IN THIS GROUND, THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 17(B) OF THE W.T. ACT, 195 7. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CHARGE THE INTEREST AS PER LAW. 9. WE NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON VARIOUS JUD ICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE TR IBUNAL. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WE CONVINCED THAT FILING OF RETURN OF AS SETS AFTER ISSUING OF NOTICES BY THE AO AND CONCEALMENT OF WEALTH ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. AS PER THE SETTLED LAW IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PROV ISIONS UNDER SECTION 18(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ASSETS BY THE ASSESSEE . IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE PARTICULARS OF ASSET S/WEALTH FURNISHED IN RETURN AS CORRECT, ALBEIT FILED AFTER ISSUING NOTIC ES BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS DOES NOT ARISE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ACT OF FILING RETURN AFTER ISSUING NOTICES BY THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS/WEALTH OR FURNISHING OF INACC URATE PARTICULARS THEREOF WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 18(I)(C) OF T HE ACT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVE NUE. WE, THEREFORE, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. CIT(A) HOLD THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF WEALTH AS THE ACT OF FILING RETURN OF WEALTH AFTER THE PRESCRIBED DATE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF WEALTH/ASSETS SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 18(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND PLAIN PROVI SIONS OF THE LAW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FACTUAL OR LEGAL INFIRMITY IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER 10 COURTS OF WARDS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO INT ERFERE WITH THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IN ITS APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200708. 11. THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN R EMAINING FOUR APPEALS I.E., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809, 2009 10, 201011 AND 201112 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOL VED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. SINCE, WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WE ALSO UPHOLD THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809, 200910, 201011 AND 201112 AND DISMISS ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 200708 TO 201112 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/ - SHAMIM YAH YA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - RAM LAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 27.03.2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, NAGPUR