2017 (12) TMI 478 - AT - Wealth-tax

Penalty levied - not furnished the return within time of sub-section (1) of section 14 - difference between filing of return within the time stipulated u/s 14(1) of the Act or filing the same with any delay - Held that - It is only basing on the revised assessment, the assessment was completed. Only reason stated by the AO for initiation of penalty was that no revision could be made incase of belated filing of the original return of wealth. Though it is argued by the Ld. DR that the belated return as well as the revised return both are nonest in the eye of the law. We find it difficult to agree with him inasmuch as it is only on the basis of the revised return of wealth, the assessment took place. We also do not find any support of law to the observations of the AO that the belated return is nonest in the eye of law as such it cannot be revised thereby rendering the revised return of wealth as void ab initio. The observations of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax are perfectly justified and the case of the assessee is squarely falls within the ambit of Section 15 of the Act as such it does not give rise to any penalty proceedings. With this view of the matter, we uphold the findings of the Commissioner of Wealth tax and found it difficult to sustain the penalty levied by the AO. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for revising wealth tax return belatedly.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi challenged penalty proceedings initiated under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act due to the revision of the wealth tax return by the assessee. The original return was filed belatedly, and a revised return was submitted after a notice was issued under Section 16(4) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax (DCWT) initiated penalty proceedings, contending that revising the return post-notice issuance constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of wealth. The DCWT levied a penalty, which was later deleted by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The department appealed, arguing that the revised return was void ab initio due to the belated original filing.

The arguments presented focused on Section 15 of the Act, which outlines conditions for revising a return, emphasizing that filing within the prescribed time under Section 14(1) or with a delay should not make a difference. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessment was based on the revised return and disagreed with the notion that belated returns are nonest in the eyes of the law. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the case fell within the ambit of Section 15 and did not warrant penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty, dismissing the grounds of the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeals by the Revenue against the penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the revised return was valid and did not justify the imposition of a penalty. The order was pronounced on November 16, 2017.