9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Late filing of wealth-tax return, imposition of penalty under section 14(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, points raised by the assessee, interpretation of section 18(1) of the Act, comparison with section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, case laws considered, conflicting judgments, final decision on penalty imposition. Detailed Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the assessee, Daljit Singh, filed his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1969-70 after a delay, leading to the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,934 on him under section 14(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The assessee appealed the decision, arguing that as an agriculturist, he was not aware of his obligation to file annual returns of his net wealth and that since the assessment was based on a return filed under section 14(2), penalty under section 18(1)(i) could not be imposed for a presumed delay in filing under section 14(1). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, considered the arguments raised by the assessee. On the first point, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was a partner in a firm and had engaged an advocate for filing tax returns, ruling against the assessee. Regarding the second point, the Tribunal referred to relevant case law and concluded that penalizing the assessee for failure to file under section 14(1) when assessment was based on section 14(2) was not permissible unless it was definitively established that the return was not filed in compliance with the notice under section 14(2). The Tribunal framed a question of law for the High Court to consider, focusing on whether the return filed was in compliance with section 14(1) or section 14(2, and whether penalty for delayed filing under section 14(1) was applicable in this scenario. The High Court analyzed section 18(1) of the Act in comparison with section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and held that a delay in filing a return could not be excused solely based on receiving a notice under section 14(2). The Court cited various case laws to support its interpretation, acknowledging conflicting judgments from different High Courts. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on the first question, stating that the return filed was in compliance with the notice under section 14(2) and not under section 14(1). However, the Court upheld the imposition of penalty for delayed filing under section 14(1), emphasizing that liability could not be avoided based on receiving a notice under section 14(2. The judgment was a split decision with one judge concurring, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
