9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was of land which was not acquired. It appears compensation of Rs. 2,93,142.60 was paid as shown at page 32 of the paper book. Besides, this assessee received interest and solatium. There was an award on21-3-1975for all this. She received Rs. 2,11,954 on the date of award itself. There were also payments made subsequently. She received final payments in January 1977. On7-1-1977, she filed returns of her net wealth for all the assessment years under appeal voluntarily. Till then no notice under section 14(2) or under section 17 of the Act had been issued to the assessee. The net wealth returned was Rs. 2,29,400, Rs. 2,29,600, Rs. 3,08,496, Rs. 2,98,800, Rs. 2,98,800 and Rs. 3,30,720, respectively for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76. 3. The returns for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 were revised on15-2-1977as recorded in the impugned assessments made for these years on24-2-1977. The revision of the returns upwards was explained to the WTO as per letter at page 4 of the paper book. 4. After the revision of the above returns, the WTO issued notice under section 17 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 on17-10-1978. In response to this notice, the assessee fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceeding taxable limit. As such, it was obligatory on her part to file the returns within the prescribed time. He, therefore, proceeded to impose the impugned penalties. These penalty orders were made on28-2-1979under section 18(1)(a) read with section 18(2). The penalty imposed was Rs. 55,653, Rs. 50,754, Rs. 63,421, Rs. 47,670 and Rs. 25,100, respectively for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 on the basis of regular assessments. Similarly, for the assessment year 1975-76 penalty of Rs. 29,440 was imposed by order dated26-2-1982. 6. As mentioned supra, the WTO had made reassessments for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 under section 17 read with section 16(3). In submissions of the returns in response to notice under section 17 there was delay. For such delay penalty of Rs. 836 and of Rs. 878 was imposed by the WTO under section 18(1)(a) by order dated26-2-1982. The appeals bearing Nos. 1487 of 1986 and 1489 of 1986 relate to these penalties. All these penalties were challenged in appeal. 7. The learned AAC,Bareillyhas made order on each appeal separately. For the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 his orders all dated21-3-1986are identically worded. He h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of law is no excuse in the eye of law itself. This assumption of the WTO was not in accordance with law because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326 has held (Per Curiam) that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law but that is not a correct statement ; there is no such maxim known to the law. In view of this, the WTO proceeded on wrong premises to evaluate the evidence tendered before him by the assessee. The WTO further observed that the assessee was having wealth exceeding taxable limit and it was obligatory on her part, to file her returns in the prescribed manner under the provisions of the Act. This is merely begging the question because the issue was as to why the assessee delayed the return despite the provisions of law being there for her to file the return of her net wealth. The WTO did not proceed to dispose of the various points made out by the assessee that caused the delay. Therefore, his order was not a speaking order against the point made by the assessee giving reasons for delay in furnishing the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted of the agricultural land and its value. Therefore, the belief of the assessee that she never thought of filing the return of wealth-tax as she thought she was not liable being an agriculturist is absolutely acceptable as bona fide. The factum of the assessee being a widow, being a pardanashin lady, having no son and not being assessed to income-tax or wealth-tax and deriving her livelihood from agricultural operations carried on by her servants on her behalf clearly lends credence to the claim of the bona fide belief and the explanation for delay in furnishing the return. 12. The revenue relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri [1981] 132 ITR 671 (FB) to contend that the doctrine of mens rea which in essence pertains to the realm of criminal law would normally not be attracted to the imposition of penalty under the taxing statute which are coersive civil sanctions and remedies for the speedy collection of revenue. However, to our mind this in no way helps the revenue on the facts of this case. We have also pointed out supra, however, that mere failure to file returns within the time allowed did not make the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
