Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (7) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 30th June, 1979, which was, however, filed by the assessee on 24th March, 1984. Thus, there was failure on the part of the assessee to file the return of gift within the prescribed time-limit. Therefore, the GTO issued a notice to show-cause why penalty under s. 17(1)(a) of the GT Act should not be levied on the assessee. He accordingly posted the proceedings on 28th March, 1988. A.A. Jose, advocate, represented the assessee before the GTO. 4. Joseph submitted before the GTO that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the gifts made by him during the asst. yr. 1979-80 were not liable to gift-tax, but when a notice under s. 17(1)(a) was issued for the default in filing the GT return under s. 13(1) of the GT Act, the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Dy. CGT(A), who fixed the case for hearing on 22nd Oct., 1991. The assessee did not remain present on the above date. Therefore, the Dy. CGT(A) after perusing the facts of the case, the penalty order decided the matter ex parte. He did not accept the explanation of the assessee of remaining under the bona fide impression that he was not liable to file any GT return. He accordingly justified the levy of penalty. He also agreed with the GTO that there was conscious disregard on the part of the assessee in filing the GT return. The Dy. CGT(A) also did not accept the fact that the assessee was keeping indifferent health during the relevant period in the absence of evidence on record to support such contention. The Dy. CGT(A), therefore, he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the GT Act. The intention of the GTO is amply made clear from the tick mark made in the notice, i.e., that he is issuing the notice to the assessee for the failure of the assessee to furnish a GT return as required under s. 13(1) of the GT Act, 1958. 8. The provisions of s. 17(1)(a) of the GT Act, are as follows: "17(1) If the GTO in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person: (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return required to be furnished under sub-s. (1) of s. 13 or by notice given under sub-s. (2) of s. 13 or s. 16 or has, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by sub-s. (1) of s. 13 or by such notice, as the case ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to file the GT return on or before 30th June, 1979. As stated above, the assessee filed the GT return only on 24th March, 1984, that is, after the issue of notice under s. 17(1). The assessee's explanation of the bona fide impression that he was not liable to pay gift-tax cannot be accepted because he was filing GT returns and paying tax in the earlier years. In support of the bona fide belief the statement of the assessee stands belied. There was also no material to support the contention of the assessee that he was not keeping good health, which prevented him in filing the GT return within the prescribed time-limit. The fact that the assessee was staying at Ootty cannot justify the delay in filing the GT return after a huge delay of mor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sentative of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marfatia Co. (1982) 136 ITR 159 (MP). It is true that the GTO has to be satisfied himself under s. 17(1)(a). He levied the penalty as he was not satisfied with the explanation that there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the GT return in time. It would be therefore incorrect to say that the GTO did not have jurisdiction under s. 16 of the Act and that therefore he had taken the delay anterior to the service of the notice for the purpose of levy of penalty. As already stated, there was a default as the return of gift was not filed in time. However, for the contention that there was no default and the ret .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates