1994 (12) TMI 124 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
- Validity and levy of penalty under s. 18(1)(a)
- Recalculation of penalty under s. 18(1)(a)
- Levy of penalty without approving reasonable cause for delay in filing return of wealth

Analysis:

The appeals involved in this case were against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax (CWT) for various assessment years. The common grounds raised by the assessees included challenges to the validity and levy of penalties under s. 18(1)(a), the direction to recalculate penalties, and the levy of penalties without considering reasonable causes for late filing of wealth returns.

The facts revealed that the wealth returns were due on specific dates for different assessment years, and were filed late, leading to penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) initiated by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, revised returns were filed under an amnesty scheme, and reassessments were completed, with penalty proceedings being reinitiated.

The assessees argued that the penalties imposed were time-barred as they were initiated after the expiry of the limitation period. The Deputy CWT(A) held that penalties were justified as the assessments had been reopened, rendering the original penalties infructuous. However, he directed the Assessing Officer to recompute penalties excluding additional wealth declared under the amnesty scheme.

In the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal, the assessees contended that penalties were initiated after the expiry of the limitation period. The Departmental Representative supported the authorities' orders, emphasizing that penalties were imposed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, upheld the penalties, stating that there was no reasonable cause for the late submission of returns. They also noted that once assessments were reopened, the original penalties became inoperative, citing relevant case law to support their decision.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals, affirming the imposition of penalties under s. 18(1)(a) for the original defaults. They concluded that the penalties were validly imposed within the reassessment proceedings, and there was no basis to quash the orders based on the limitation argument raised by the assessees. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Deputy CWT(A)'s orders and upheld the penalties for all assessees involved in the appeals.