Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Tej Pal Oswal

Question referred.--"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in view of the mandatory provisions of Explanation I to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in deleting the penalty of Rs. 27,734 levied upon the assessee ?"

O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.—The petitioner submitted wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1968-69, declaring net wealth of Rs. 1,01,802. This included a sum of Rs. 22,630 said to be the value of 1,088 equity shares of Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., calculated at the rate of Rs. 20 80 per share. The Wealth-tax Officer determined the value of the shares at Rs. 50.04 per share under Rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules. The Wealth-tax Officer later himself revised the value of the shares to Rs. 46 29 per share. Later, the Wealth-tax Officer instituted penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal held that there was a possible bona fide difference of opinion between the assessee and the Income Tax Officer on the question of value of the share and, therefore, the levy of penalty was not justified. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax has sought a mandamus from this court to direct the Tribunal to state a case. We do not think it is necessary to direct the Tribunal to state a case on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. The clear finding of the Tribunal is that there was a bona fide difference of opinion. It is true that u/s 18(1)(c), the burden is on the assessee but that, the Tribunal said, had been discharged by the assessee in the present case. No doubt, the Tribunal made some unfortunate references to the element of mens rea and so on. Despite the unnecessary references to the element of mens rea, the clear finding of the Tribunal is that the plea of the assessee regarding the valuation of shares was a bona fide plea, whether or not there was any merit in it. We do not, therefore, think that the reference would be justified. The application is, therefore, rejected.