1981 (6) TMI 94 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957
- Delay in filing wealth tax return for asst. yr. 1967-68
- Justification for penalty amount
- Lack of evidence for extension of time application
- Assessment of penalty by WTO and confirmation by AAC

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed by the WTO under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957 for the delay in filing the wealth tax return for the assessment year 1967-68, with the valuation date being 31st March, 1967.

2. The WTO contended that the return of wealth should have been filed by 30th June, 1967, but was actually filed on 9th Oct., 1969. The assessee claimed that the previous auditor might have applied for an extension of time, but the explanation was deemed vague and unconvincing by the WTO, leading to the penalty imposition.

3. The AAC upheld the penalty, stating that since the income tax return for the same assessment year was filed on time, there was no evidence of an extension application for the wealth tax return. The appellant argued that the penalty was excessive, citing a court case and the time-consuming valuation process due to a change in auditors.

4. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted the disparity between the wealth tax payable and the penalty amount. The department representative supported the penalty, emphasizing the lack of evidence for the extension application.

5. The Tribunal reviewed the contentions and records, noting that there was no proof of an extension application for the wealth tax return despite timely filing of the income tax return. The appellant's claim of the previous auditor handling the matter was refuted, and the penalty was deemed justified based on the circumstances and lack of reasonable cause for the delay.

6. The Tribunal found that the valuation process for the properties was straightforward and did not warrant significant delay in filing the wealth tax return. The absence of corroborative evidence for the extension application further supported the decision to uphold the penalty imposed by the authorities.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the AAC's order and upholding the penalty imposed by the WTO, as it was deemed justified in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.