Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against a judgment and order dt. 18th June, 2003 passed by the Tribunal upholding the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by his order dt. 28th Dec., 2001 upheld the order imposing penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act. The amount of penalty was, however, reduced by him. The appeal against the order of the Tribunal was admitted by this Court by an order dt. 15th Dec., 2003 and the following questions were formulated: "(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the imposition of penalty under Expln. 2 to s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee failed to file the valuer's report along with the return and ignoring the fact the said report was filed in course of assessment proceedings was based on irrelevant considerations ignoring the relevant material and therefore was perverse? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have held that the penalty order passed by the WTO under s. 18(1) of the WT Act, 1957 without prior approval of the requisite authority under s. 18(3) of the said Act was void ab initio and without jurisdiction and authority of law - The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: There was a dwelling house situate at Premises No. 12B, Mandeville Gardens, Kolkata, demolition whereof was started after 31st March, 1988. During the financial year 1987 -88 corresponding to the asst. yr. 1988 -89, the dwelling house was valued at Rs. 55,000 for the purpose of wealth -tax, which was duly accepted by the Department. The demolition started during the financial year 1988 -89. In the corresponding asst. yr. 1989 -90, the assessee filed a return computing the valuation of the said property at a sum of Rs. 6,07,000, on the basis of a valuation report dt. 18th March, 1991 prepared by Sri D.K. Dutta, Chartered Engineer and Government Registered Valuer.
(2.) THE ITO arrived at a conclusion that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars while filing the WT return for the asst. yrs. 1989 -90 and 1990 -91 for the following reasons: "It is most surprising that the valuer Mr. D.K. Dutta has taken the value of land at Rs. 6,07,000 as on 1st April, 1974 whereas the value is to be taken for the asst. yrs. 1989 -90 and 1990 -91 as on 31st March, 1989 and 31st March, 1990 as the case may be. But assessee showed the value in his WT return for the aforesaid property at Rs. 6,00,000 in both the aforesaid assessment years instead of Rs. 6,07,000. One more thing should be highlighted here that the assessee filed his return of wealth for the asst. yrs. 1989 -90 and 1990 -91 on 9th April, 1991 and 27th May, 1991 respectively while aforesaid property was valued by the assessee's valuer Mr. D.K. Dutta on 18th March, 1991 which was before the submission of WT return. It is not known to the Department under what circumstances the assessee failed to enclose the said valuation report along with return of wealth. Why should not this valuation report be treated as manufactured after the submission of return of wealth as because when assessee submitted the return of wealth value shown at Rs. 6,00,000. From this it can easily be inferred that the assessee just presented an imaginary value of the property at 12B, Mandeville Gardens in his return of wealth. Authorised Representative of the assessee in his aforesaid explanation also claimed that valuation prepared by the DVO or assessee's valuer and then revised by the DVO and finally reduced by the CIT(A) was of difference of opinion among the valuers. In this context I am to mention here that none of the valuers valued the property of 12B, Mandeville Gardens at Rs. 6,00,000 or less viz., The above fact was brought into the notice of the assessee by issuance of letter dt. 1st March, 2000." The ITO, in the circumstances, imposed penalty for both the asst. yrs. 1989 -90 and 1990 -91. The CIT(A) agreeing with the order of the ITO upheld the imposition of penalty but reduced the amount thereof. The learned Tribunal did not interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred and the aforesaid questions were framed.
(3.) MR . Murarka, learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that there can be no question of any concealment when the valuation disclosed by the assessee was based on the views of a registered valuer. He added, that the finding that the valuer had valued the property at Rs. 6,07,000, but the assessee, in fact, returned a sum of Rs. 6,00,000, was a mistake on the part of the ITO because it would appear from the first assessment order dt. 30th March, 1992 that the assessee had really valued the property at Rs. 6,07,000.;