1984 (3) TMI 133 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessee's liability for penalty under s. 18 (1) (a) of WT Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four appeals against a common order of the AAC regarding the assessee's liability for penalties under s. 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act. The penalties were imposed by the WTO due to delays in filing returns for multiple years. The AAC had deleted the penalties, leading the Revenue to file second appeals. The Tribunal heard the parties extensively and found that the facts and grounds for deletion of penalties varied across the years in question.

For the assessment year 1969-70, the AAC had noted that the assessee had applied for an extension to file the return, which was granted until 31st Oct. 1969. The return was filed on the extended date, and the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the AAC's decision to delete the penalty for this year. The departmental appeal for this year was dismissed.

Moving to the year 1970-71, the assessee contended that there was no default as an extension had been granted for filing returns related to agricultural lands. The return was filed well before the extended deadline, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for this year as well.

Regarding the earlier years, the assessee cited family disputes and personal circumstances as reasons for the delay in filing returns. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the pleas raised before the WTO and the AAC. While the WTO mechanically imposed penalties, the Tribunal found that some pleas were not properly considered. Therefore, it directed the AAC to reevaluate the levy of penalties for the earlier years, considering all facts and providing an opportunity for the WTO to be heard.

The Tribunal also highlighted that the penalties imposed by the WTO were not in accordance with the law. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal clarified that the penalty should be determined based on the time lag between the due date and actual filing date, without monthly increments. The AAC was instructed to reconsider the penalties in line with the legal principles discussed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed some appeals while allowing others for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for penalties to be determined correctly based on legal provisions and case law.