1979 (8) TMI 68 - HC - Wealth-tax

Application For Extension, Failure To File Return, Question Of Fact, Reasonable Cause, Wealth Tax Penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of law regarding the period of default for non-filing of wealth-tax returns.

Analysis:
The High Court of Patna was asked to provide an opinion on whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the period of default for non-filing of wealth-tax returns was until January 13, 1967, and not until the actual date of filing the returns. The case involved assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67, where the assessee failed to file wealth tax returns by the due dates but filed them later. The WTO imposed penalties for the delay in filing the returns, which were challenged by the assessee. The AAC found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the default after January 13, 1967, based on petitions for extension filed with the WTO. The department appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the extensions filed after the due date were invalid. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the assessee could apply for an extension even after the statutory due date.

The High Court observed that the question at hand was essentially a question of fact regarding whether there was a reasonable cause for the default in filing the returns after January 13, 1967. The Court noted that both the AAC and the Tribunal had already considered this aspect and reached a conclusion based on the available evidence. The Court further discussed the discretionary power of the Income-tax Officer to grant extensions for filing returns and cited cases from Andhra Pradesh and Gauhati High Courts to support the view that an assessee could seek an extension even after the due date. The Court emphasized that there was no law debarring an assessee from requesting an extension until the assessment was completed.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the wealth-tax returns until the actual filing date was correct. The Court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling against the department. The assessee was awarded costs and a hearing fee. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the factual circumstances and the discretionary power of tax authorities in granting extensions for filing returns.