IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WTA.No. 186 of 2009() --------------------- WTA.3/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIOHNER OF WEALTH TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS INDIA (P) LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P. BALAKRISHNAN THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, ALONG WITH WTA NO. 187 OF 2009 WTA NO. 191 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.T.A. Nos. 186, 187 & 191 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. In the connected appeals, the total penalty involved is little over Rs. 1.65 lakhs for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99. Under the relevant circular issued by the Board, the tax or penalty involved should be Rs. 4 lakhs for appeal to the High Court as against around Rs. 60,000/- in each case. Senior counsel appearing for the revenue- appellant submitted that these appeals come under exception clause and therefore appeals are maintainable even though the amount involved is below the threshold limit and that the question of law raised is substantial question of law and will arise in the assessee's own case for subsequent years. He has highlighted the scope of Explanation III to Section 18(1) which states that non-filing of returns shall be deemed to be concealment for the purpose of penalty. However, we find that items assessed are urban land and motor cars, details of which were available in the Balance Sheet and Income tax returns filed. In fact the 2 assessing officer himself levied only minimum penalty. Since penalty is levied essentially for non-filing of returns for three years, we do not think questions of law raised are likely to arise for subsequent years. Further questions raised are not substantial questions of law because the Tribunal on facts found that details of assets, value of which was subject matter of wealth tax were available in the Balance Sheet and income tax returns filed for assessment. We therefore hold that by virtue of Instruction 2 of 2005 dated 24.10.2005 issued by the Board of Revenue, appeals are not maintainable. Consequently appeals are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk 3