1980 (7) TMI 89 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the return of wealth leading to penalty imposition.
2. Validity of reasons provided for the delay in filing the return.
3. Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty based on reasonable cause.
4. Revenue's request for reference of a legal question to the High Court.
5. High Court's determination of whether the question is a question of law.

Delay in Filing the Return of Wealth:
The case involved a delay of 16 months in filing the return of wealth for the assessment year 1969-70. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) initiated penalty proceedings due to the delay and imposed a penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee attributed the delay to the death of her father and mother, causing distress and uncertainty regarding the distribution of wealth among siblings.

Validity of Reasons for Delay:
The assessee appealed the penalty imposition before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who acknowledged the validity of the reasons provided but deemed the delay in filing the return as inordinate. The AAC partially condoned the delay up to a certain date but held the assessee liable for the delay beyond that date.

Tribunal's Decision on Penalty Cancellation:
The assessee further appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), which accepted the explanation for the delay as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found no evidence of dishonest motive and canceled the penalty. It also referenced a previous case involving a similar situation where the penalty was set aside in appeal.

Revenue's Request for Reference:
The revenue, dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision, sought a reference to the High Court on the question of whether the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in filing the wealth tax return.

High Court's Determination:
The High Court, after reviewing the case records, dismissed the revenue's request for reference. It concluded that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual considerations, not legal questions. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were factual, accepting the assessee's explanation for the delay and finding no intentional withholding of the return. Therefore, the High Court deemed the question sought for reference as a question of fact, leading to the dismissal of the case with costs.