K.C. SRIVASTAVA, A.M.: ORDER These five appeals by assessee are directed against orders of CIT (A), Bhopal, dismissing assessee's appeals against imposition of penalties under s. 18(1)(c) of WT Act, 1957 ('the Act'). 2 . assessee is Karta of HUF known as Girwarlal Pyarelal Morena. penalties have been imposed in respect of asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1971-72. assessee-family has been assessed to wealth tax from inception of that Act. Most of facts are common in all five years and in fact learned CIT (A) has passed speaking order only in asst. yr. 1967- 68 and in other years, he has followed that order. position of assessed wealth and returned wealth for five years as given in order of CIT (A) is as under : Asst. After Returned Assessed yr. appeal Rs. Rs. Rs. 1967- 3,78,890 6,87,225 5,83,000 68 1968- 3,52,115 7,09,061 6,04,811 69 1969- 3,17,717 7,37,383 6,31,133 70 1970- 3,38,000 7,46,534 6,40,284 71 1971- 4,20,000 7,72,034 72 3. facts are that for all five years, returns of wealth had been filed on different dates starting from January 1969 to June 1971. On basis of these returns, WTO proceeded to pass orders on 31st March, 1973. Before passing these orders, WTO initiated proceedings under s. 18(1)(c). Before making of assessment, assessee had moved two applications one of these applications related to disclosure about agricultural lands and they were moved before CIT, on 19th Feb., 1972 and 25th Feb., 1972 for non- imposition of penalty or waiving same. Another petition was made on 26th July, 1972 making disclosure about six houses in Morena. Against these assessment orders, there were appeals before CIT (A). While deciding other grounds, he set aside Assessment orders in respect of inclusion and valuation of land measuring 6 bighas or 10,325 square yards. According to assessee, these lands were agricultural in nature but WTO had not accepted same. After discussing factual position, AAC set aside assessment order and directed him to consider real nature of this land. WTO was to determine whether any part of land was agricultural or not and whether agricultural operations were carried on such land. This order of AAC was passed on 31st March, 19 74 . assessee had filed appeal before Tribunal on points decided against him and Tribunal disposed of assessee's appeals on 26th Oct., 1976 and allowed appeals in part. On question of agricultural land, where matter had been set aside by AAC, Tribunal had confirmed that part of order. 4 . After this order of Tribunal, WTO proceeded to complete assessments for each assessment year on 5th March, 1979 and held that land to extent of 1 bigha and 13 biswas was not agricultural land whereas balance of 4 bighas and 7 biswas was agricultural land. In respect of non- agricultural land, WTO determined value at Rs. 20,000 and included it in wealth of assessee. Against these assessment orders, there were further appeals before AAC, who by his order dt. 29th Sept., 1982 confirmed orders of WTO. After this, WTO has proceeded to impose penalties in respect of all years and orders of penalty have been passed on 21st May, 1983. 5. WTO proceeded to hold that in respect of certain assets there was concealment on part of assessee. After pointing out to various assets in respect of which WTO made charge of concealment, he made specific in respect of which WTO made charge of concealment, he made specific reference to certain items. They were as under : 1. Six house properties whose annual value was Rs. 700 for whole year value of this asset was taxed by Tribunal at Rs. 40,000. 2. Non-agricultural land chargeable to tax 1 bigh and 13 biswas valued at Rs. 20,000. 3. assessee-HUF had claimed its net business asset at nil after adjusting debit balance standing in names of members of family and also adjusting loss in Deepak Iron Foundry. WTO had determined value of capital at Rs. 1,15,975. claim of Rs. 42,210 in Deepak Iron Foundry was also rejected. other item which is involved is question of value of debts which according to assessee had become bad several years prior to valuation date and had been claimed as bad debt in earlier years. According to assessee, there was no value of these assets on valuation dates. 6. WTO, however, proceeded to hold that assessee had concealed particulars of his wealth and had furnished inaccurate particulars of same. He proceeded to impose minimum penalty in each year, which was as under : Asst. yr. Penalty imposed Rs. 1967-68 2,04,110 1968-69 2,52,685 1969-70 3,13,381 1970-71 3,02,000 1971-72 2,44,000 7. When matter came up before CIT (A), it was contended before CIT (A) that regarding large properties, assessee had got them valued by valuer but in respect of six small properties such valuation remained to be done. As return was filed on basis of valuer's report, there was omission regarding value of these six properties. It was also contended that before any detection could be made, assessee had disclosed value of this property and had moved CIT in matter. Regarding agricultural land, it was claimed that after matter was set aside, only small portion of land was held to be non-agricultural on ground that it was fallow land. It was held to be non-agricultural on ground that it had not been used for agricultural purposes. Regarding business asset, it was contended that loss in Deepak Iron Foundry was as per assessee's accounts and if loss was not accepted that could not mean that wealth of assessee increased to that extent. In respect of debit balance, in accounts of members of family, it was urged that they were withdrawals for household expenses. According to assessee, there was no concealment on part of assessee as facts were before WTO. It was also contended that in respect of house properties and agricultural land, assessee had come forward to make disclosure before CIT only with view to avoid penalty. 8. CIT, however, held that assessee had omitted to show certain assets and as they were likely to be detected, he came forward to disclose them. He held that disclosure could not be considered to be prior to any detection. penalties imposed were, therefore, confirmed. 9 . learned counsel for assessee submitted before us that all particulars of wealth were being submitted from time to time in earlier years as well. In no other year, there was any question of penalty. It was further contended that as regards house properties they were duly disclosed in all earlier years and value was adopted by taking it 20 times of annual rental. It was submitted that it was case of omission and not concealment on part of assessee. He submitted that in first year of 1967-68, confusion arose as assessee got properties valued by valuer and in that process, six house properties were not valued by valuer. As soon as this fact was detected, it was brought to notice of Revenue authorities and application was moved before CIT. learned counsel submitted that application was moved before CIT. learned counsel submitted that assessee should have only revised return and there was no need for making this petition. He drew our attention to entries in order sheet and submitted that there were no enquiries either regarding house properties or agricultural land. He, therefore, submitted that behaviour of assessee was against charge of concealment as he disclosed value of these properties, as soon as he realised that there had been omission. It was also contended by him that assessee would not conceal properties worth Rs. 14 ,000, when he was disclosing substantial wealth and wealth tax was quite nominal. It was also pointed out that WTO has not held that there was prior detection before assessee moved CIT in respect of this asset. 10. Regarding agricultural land, it was submitted that it was not case of concealment but case of making claim that whole land was agricultural in nature. He pointed out that firstly, WTO rejecting claim of assessee in full and after matter was set aside, he went into facts and accepted claim of assessee to substantial extent and held that only 1 bigha and 13 biswas was not qualified for being treated as agricultural land. In respect of this also, it was submitted that it was question of difference of opinion and fact that major portion of assessee's claim was accepted is proof of bona fides of assessee. He also submitted that assessee had moved disclosure petition before CIT prior to any detection and in fact all facts were before WTO. There was nothing to show that claim of assessee that whole land was agricultural in nature was result of any intention to avoid wealth tax. 1 1 . Coming to capital in business, it was explained by learned counsel that there were two branches in family and each branch had certain debit balance which has been coming over from earlier year. According to assessee, these debits were for meeting household expenses of members and as there were certain disputes between members of family each branch was trying to withdraw some money for its use. It was also pointed out that in earlier years in balance sheet of assessee-HUF, they were debit balances in names of members of family and assessee had claimed in wealth tax assessment that these balances should be deducted in computing wealth. Reference was made to assessment orders of earlier years. It was pointed out that this claim of assessee has not been allowed as amounts had continued to be in books. In this year, assessee adjusted capital account with debit balances and this went to reduce capital of family. He submitted that there was no question of concealment when actual position was before WTO in earlier years as well as in this year. He also contended that merely rejecting claim could not result in inference of concealment. It was pointed out by learned counsel that for later years, WTO has added six per cent interest on balance of capital and has worked out family's capital accordingly. He submitted whole exercise by WTO was erroneous and unjustified. 12. learned counsel drew our attention to certain debts which totalled to Rs. 18,226. These were very old debts which were time barred and were lying in books for last 15 to 20 years. There was no question of their being realised but they were being carried on in books. It was submitted that in this year assessee tried to adjust it as there was no value of these debts and no question of their realisation as they had been outstanding since year 1957- 58. He showed to us assessment orders in support of this claim. 13. learned counsel submitted that from facts, it would be clear that there was no intention to avoid any wealth tax and if at all, it was case of assessee's mistakes or omissions which were not committed with intention to defraud Revenue. He submitted that primary facts were before WTO and wherever there were omissions it was pointed out before Department could detect it. 14 . learned counsel for assessee then made some submissions on legal grounds and contended that penalty orders were barred by limitation and lacked proper jurisdiction. It was submitted that assessments made by WTO had been set aside only on one point and, therefore, it could not be held that latter appellate orders should be taken into consideration for working out position of limitation. Relying on Seetharama Lakshmi Rice & Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. vs. ITO (1978) 111 ITR 212 (AP), he submitted that proceedings should be held to be time barred and wanting in jurisdiction. 15. Departmental Representative supported orders of CIT (A) and submitted that neither house properties nor non-agricultural land had been disclosed in first return and assessee's approach to CIT showed that he had attempted to conceal. He also submitted that there was nothing to show that debits in accounts of members of family was for meeting household expenses. He also contended that debits were not proved to have become bad and in respect of these items penalty was imposable. On legal aspect, he submitted that it did not arise out of CIT (A)'s order. 16. We have carefully considered rival contentions. question for consideration is whether assessee concealed any assets or deliberately undervalued them while filing returns. For this purpose, it would be necessary to consider items which have been basis of imposition of penalty. first item relates to house properties. In earlier years, assessee was disclosing value of properties on basis of annual letting value and after multiplying them by 20. in this year, assessee had referred matter to valuer who had submitted detailed reports regarding properties. contention of assessee was that by mistake or inadvertence six small properties were not valued by valuer and, hence, it remained to be included in wealth tax returns. further plea of assessee was that WTO had himself not detected this fact and it was assessee who brought this to his notice by filing petition before CIT. In this petition, mistake and inadvertence was shown as cause for omission. It was also submitted that return of wealth had been filed voluntarily and there was no notice under s. 14 (2) of Act. It was in this petition that details of properties had been mentioned. Thus, according to assessee, particulars of properties had been furnished prior to completion of assessments and there was no intention to conceal this fact as properties were included in past and wealth tax on their value would have been very nominal. Ultimately, Tribunal had valued these properties at Rs. 14 ,000 only. In view of above position, we are inclined to accept plea of assessee that omission to show these properties was by mistake and inadvertence and there was neither any these properties was by mistake and inadvertence and there was neither any fraud nor gross or wilful neglect in such omission. WTO has not stated that he had himself detected this fact before assessee brought this to notice of Revenue authorities. 17. Regarding agricultural land, it was pointed out that assessee owned 10,325 square yards of land which assessee considered to be agricultural land, value of this, therefore, was not included in returns filed. WTO had, however, held that these properties were not agricultural properties and he, therefore, included value of such properties in wealth of assessee. In appeal, assessee had contended that these properties were shown as agricultural properties in Revenue records and though some part of properties may have been shown as fallow land they were essentially agricultural in nature. AAC in appeal, set aside order on this issue and directed that WTO should redetermine nature of properties after considering agricultural operations, payment of land revenue and other relevant factors. This order of AAC setting aside order on this point was upheld by Tribunal. WTO while making assessment in pursuance of order of AAC accepted plea of assessee regarding agricultural land in respect of most of land though he did not accept it in respect of 1 bigha and 13 biswas. According to him, there was no evidence of agricultural operations on this piece of land. He, therefore, included Rs. 20,000 as value of this land. 18. According to assessee, there was no concealment as fact about assessee's owning this land was before WTO and assessee had not included it in his return as he was of view that land in question was fully agricultural land. It was also submitted that most of land was accepted as agricultural land by WTO. It was also pointed out that assessee had before making of original assessment moved CIT to disclose fact about these agricultural lands and it was submitted that this may be considered for purpose of wealth tax if permitted under law. It is stated before us that there was no order of CIT on these petitions. 19. Having considered facts, we are of view that this was not case of concealment as assets themselves were in knowledge of WTO though assessee was claiming this land to be agricultural land. It is significant that claim of assessee was accepted about major portion of this land and only small portion remained to be explained. There also, assessee accepted ultimate finding given by WTO only because small wealth tax was involved. Where assessee makes bona fide claim and is able to substantially establish it, it cannot be held that there was concealment only on ground that part of his claim was not acceptable in absence of necessary of material. 2 0 . third item is in respect of capital of business. assessee-HUF was maintaining accounts and was preparing balance sheets. There were two branches of HUF and there were debit balances in name of these branches. According to assessee, they represented withdrawals f o r meeting household expenses. In earlier years, these amounts were shown separately in balance sheet but in this year assessee adjusted these debits to capital account. HUF was having business named as Deepak Iron Foundry and there was loss in earlier years as well as this year. Though this loss was not accepted for income tax purposes, it stood in books of assessee, instead of showing it separately assessee adjusted it against HUF's capital account. Apart from above, there were certain debts which HUF had to realise and were shown in balance sheet for last several years. assessee found that these debts were outstanding for almost 20 years, and they had been claimed as bad debts in books and reduced capital to that extent. These adjustments in capital accounts were not accepted by ITO who took same at Rs. 1,50,957 by rejecting plea of assessee. 21. After hearing learned counsel for assessee and after perusing materials on record, we are of view that on this question also there cannot be any charge of concealment. balance sheets were there and all has happened in this year was adjustment made in capital account. No facts were concealed and they were all in books. Revenue has not accepted case of assessee on ground that assessee had no material to establish that withdrawals were for household purposes and bad debts had actually become bad and loss in Deepak Iron Foundry has bad debts had actually become bad and loss in Deepak Iron Foundry has not been accepted in income tax assessment. According to us, this stand of Revenue could not result in interference that there was any concealment by assessee insofar as wealth tax assessments were concerned. accounts were already in balance sheet and adjustments were also made in books. After making those adjustments, capital had been reduced to minus figure. Having regard to this, there cannot be any charge of concealment or fraud on part of assessee. Regarding bad debts also assessee had plausible case as these debts were outstanding for almost 20 years and there was no question of there being realised. At least, there could be no charge of concealment if assessee values these debts as nil. In view o f this, we hold that no concealment is proved or established regarding business capital also. Thus, all items which formed basis for imposition of penalty under s. 18(1)(c) are duly explained and we hold that there was no concealment by assessee in respect of these assets. explanation given by assessee clearly proves that there was neither any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on part of assessee in making return under Act. On merits, therefore, we hold that no penalty was leviable. 22. Coming to legal issue, we are not inclined to accept plea of assessee regarding time bar or jurisdiction. law requires that penalty order can be passed within specified time after passing of final appellate order. In present case, we cannot say that assessment proceedings had been finally completed till final appellate order was available. law does not contemplate more than one penalty to be levied under s. 18(1)(c) from time to time and, thus, when final position of wealth assessed is available then alone it can be ascertained as to what were t h e properties in respect of which there can be case of concealment. Admittedly, penalty orders were within time if counted from date of final appellate order. This plea of assessee regarding time bar and jurisdiction is, therefore, rejected. appeals are, however, allowed on merits. *** TRILOKI NATH v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER