MEGHJI GIRDHARLAL HUF Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1994-10-7
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 07,1994

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

O.P. Jain, Judicial Member - (1.) THESE appeals pertain to the same assessee and were heard together. Since most of the points are common to all the appeals, we proceed to decide them by a consolidated order. W.T. A. Nos. 106/Ind/89 and 32/Ind/90 :
(2.) The first issue in both the appeals relate to the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 25 lakhs. In the year 1965, the Central Excise Authorities had carried out search operation at the premises of the assessee. During that search, in addition to other items, gold weighing 240.040 kgs. was found. The Excise Authorities were of the opinion that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule 126-L of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, in respect of that gold and, therefore, proceedings were initiated for levying the penalty. Vide order dated 24th September, 1966, the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, had levied the penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs for contravention of the said provisions. The gold found during the search was also confiscated under rule 126-L of the said Rules. The order levying the penalty was confirmed, in the order of revision passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of India. The assessee had challenged the levy of penalty by way of writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court, which had stayed the recovery of the penalty. The said writ petition is stated to be still pending. The ld. advocate for the assessee had admitted that the amount of penalty has yet. not been paid by the assessee.
(3.) DURING the assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed deduction in respect of the amount of penalty on the basis that the same is an outstanding liability. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's claim. The assessee preferred appeal before the CWT (A). It was noticed by him that similar point had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A. Ys. 1966-67 to 1981-82 and the assessee's claim was rejected by the Tribunal. Following that order of the Tribunal, the ld. CWT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.