9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do so. Actually the returns for all the five years were filed on 30th Oct., 1971 (as explained by the learned representative for the Department before us even though the date mentioned in the order of the WTO is 15th Nov., 1971). The WTO started penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) and asked the assessee to explain as to why she should not be penalised. The assessee explained that the firm Onkarmal Nanakram had filed a disclosure petition before the CWT and that the same was pending. In the absence of a final decision on the said petition, the aforesaid firm could not decide as to the amounts disclosed therein could be taken as the capital of the firm. Consequently, the assessee partner was not in a position to know the value of her inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment urged before us that the AAC was not justified in his decision. He stated that the AAC has merely recorded the contentions raised before him by the assessee and has not given the reason as to why he considered that to be satisfactory. Accordingly to him, the order of the AAC is not a speaking order. Coming to the reasons given by the assessee in his written submissions before the AAC, he stated that in paragraph 5 thereof the assessee had raised the contention that she was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the penalty order was passed. He pointed out that this contention was considered by the Tribunal and found to be without substance in their order dt. 31st Aug., 1975 by which they restored these appeals to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before nor relied on by the AAC. Further, he explained that the firm Onkarmal Nankram had disclosed hundi loans worth Rs. 1,51,875 in the petition filed before the CWT offering the same to be assessed over a period of several years. This petition was filed on 19th Dec., 1967 and was kept pending till 27th March, 1971 on which date it was accepted. He explained that without a decision on the position, he hundi loan could not have been included in the capital of the firm. Further, the amount of tax liability also depended upon the decision of the CWT which in turn affected the capital position of the subsequent years. He pointed to the strict penalty measures in the WT Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of wealth in the return and argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d those submissions and came to the conclusion that the penalties imposed were not justified. The undisputed facts are that the disclosure petition filed by the assessee in July, 1967 remained pending with the CWT till March, 1971. We find force in the contention that the assessee was not in a position to file the exact value of her interest in the firm Onkarmal Nanakram without the disposal of the disclosure petition. Consequently, the delay upto March, 1971 can be said to be due to reasonable cause. Then, there was a series of deaths in the family of the assessee including the death of the lawyer who looked after all her tax matters in the past. The last death occurred in October, 1971. In our opinion these events were certainly disturbin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
