1984 (6) TMI 65 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of heavy penalty for alleged late submission of wealth-tax return, lack of evidence for timely filing of return, reliance on circumstantial evidence, interpretation of notices under s. 16(2), justification of penalty amount, comparison with subsequent years' returns, applicability of previous court decisions.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of a substantial penalty of Rs. 52,668 for the alleged late submission of a wealth-tax return, delayed by 67 months. The assessee claimed to have filed the return on 22nd July, 1972, although no acknowledgment could be produced. A revised return was submitted in 1977, along with revised returns for other assessment years. The WTO issued notices under s. 16(2) on various dates, highlighting discrepancies in the returns submitted by the assessee.

The AAC upheld the penalty, citing the absence of evidence supporting the filing of the return in July 1972. The appellant's affidavit and arguments were dismissed, and the WTO's inward register indicated no filing on the claimed date. The appellant contended that the register was not produced during the hearing and emphasized the timely filing of subsequent years' returns. The penalty amount was questioned, especially considering the reduced tax liability and refund for subsequent years.

The Departmental representative stressed the significant delay of 67 months and referenced a prior court decision. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the assessee, who can rely on circumstantial evidence if the acknowledgment is unavailable. The Tribunal found the circumstantial evidence, including the filing dates of subsequent returns and wording in notices under s. 16(2), supported the claim of filing on 22nd July, 1972. The Tribunal criticized the Department's oversight in issuing notices without verifying actual filings.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the assessee had indeed filed the return on the claimed date, thereby deleting the imposed penalty. The decision highlighted the importance of circumstantial evidence and criticized the Department's lack of verification procedures.