9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the imposition of penalty and the quantum of penalty levied for the late filing of the wealth-tax return. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Legality and Propriety of the Imposition of Penalty and Quantum of Penalty Levied for Late Filing of Wealth-Tax Return Background: The assessee filed the wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1969-70 on 3rd February 1970, which was due by 30th June 1969. The delay prompted the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to issue a show-cause notice under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee argued that the return was filed voluntarily upon realizing the liability and requested no penal action. The WTO found this explanation unsatisfactory and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,825. Proceedings: - The assessee had delayed filings for multiple years (1964-65 to 1969-70), leading to six separate penalty proceedings. - The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) dismissed the appeals, stating the WTO was not obligated to inform the assessee of the filing responsibility. However, relief was granted for the year 1964-65. - The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, aligning its reasoning with a similar case involving another individual, Srimati Saraswati Devi. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, noting that the delay was not justified by reasonable cause. Legal Considerations: - Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act allows for penalties if a person fails to furnish returns without reasonable cause. - The Supreme Court's ruling in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa established that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal, requiring deliberate defiance of law, contumacious or dishonest conduct, or conscious disregard of obligations for penalties to be justified. - The Tribunal determined that the explanation provided by the assessee was not reasonable and upheld the penalties. The penalties were adjusted according to the law applicable in the relevant years, except for 1969-70, where no reduction was granted. Burden of Proof: - The burden lies on the department to establish prima facie that the assessee failed to file the return without reasonable cause. - Once the department meets this initial burden, the assessee must show, on the balance of probabilities, that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. Judgment: - The Tribunal's decision was justified as the assessee's delay was without reasonable cause, indicating wilful or gross negligence. - The argument that the penalty imposition required a finding of mens rea was rejected. The expression "without reasonable cause" does not import a mental element or mens rea. - The law applicable for penalty imposition is based on the date the return was due, not the valuation date. Hence, the penalty imposed was in accordance with the law as it stood on 1st April 1969. Conclusion: The reference was answered in the affirmative, favoring the department and against the assessee. No order as to costs was made. Separate Judgment: S. SARWAR ALI, Actg. C.J., concurred with the judgment.
|
