9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalties levied under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957 for late filing of wealth tax returns by an illiterate individual assessee. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-B heard the appeals by Revenue against the order cancelling penalties imposed by the WTO on the respondent assessee for delayed filing of wealth tax returns. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75 due to significant delays in filing. The assessee, an illiterate lady, explained her belief that her net wealth was below taxable limits and she was not aware of the obligation to file returns. The WTO, unsatisfied with her explanation, levied penalties for each year based on the delay and wealth assessed. The AAC, considering precedents and the assessee's circumstances, concluded that the penalties were unjustified as the assessee did not act deliberately in defiance of the law or dishonestly. The AAC highlighted that the taxable liability indicated the assessee did not intend to incur penalties by filing late. In the appeal, the Revenue contended that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and questioned the assessee's belief that she was not required to file returns. The Revenue also argued discrepancies in the assessee's filed wealth compared to the actual assessed wealth. The Revenue further raised concerns about rectification orders by the WTO and the failure to initiate proceedings for concealment of wealth. The Revenue asserted that the assessee's conduct indicated contumacious behavior and conscious disregard of obligations, warranting the penalties. The assessee's representative defended the AAC's decision, emphasizing the illiterate nature of the assessee and disputes regarding wealth valuation and liabilities. The representative cited cases supporting the assessee's position and argued that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to show no reasonable cause for late filing. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, upheld the AAC's decision to cancel the penalties. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse but noted that not everyone is presumed to know the law. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's belief that her wealth was below taxable limits, given the circumstances and disputes surrounding her wealth valuation. The Tribunal emphasized that penalizing under s. 18(1)(a) requires proof of deliberate defiance of the law or contumacious conduct, which was not established in this case. Relying on precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal found no reason to disturb the AAC's order and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the penalties were unjustified in the given circumstances.
|
