9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,100 and Rs. 2,75,100, respectively. On appeals the CWT (Appeals) has directed the IAC to modify the penalty orders by working out the quantum on the basis of wealth-tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. However, he held that the penalties were otherwise leviable. The assessee has come up in second appeal before Tribunal. The department has filed appeals in relation to these very assessment years 1970-71 and 1972-73 challenging the order of the CWT (Appeals) directing the IAC to recompute the amount of penalty. 2. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in all these appeals. It is obviously that the penalties have not been levied on the basis of any mis-statements on the part of the assessee. They have been levied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was not prevalent during the relevant period. It only needs to be pointed out that these penalties for concealment and not for any delay in the filing of the returns. Therefore, the interpretation regarding the retrospective application of the provisions should be taken in favour of the assessee. The said explanation could not ordinarily be said to constitute a rule of evidence inasmuch as the same sought to establish concealment of wealth on the part of the assessee even when the basic act of filing the returns had not been done. This contention of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Madras High Court in S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 and also of the Kerala High Court in the case of Thoppil Kutti Err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the time limit for completion of both these assessments under clause (a) of section 17A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act would be 4 years commencing on and from the first day of April, 1975 if no return at all had been filed by the assessee or one year from the date of filing of the return whichever was later. Obviously the first alternative would have to be taken for the purpose of considering the applicability of the Explanation. Therefore, the assessee could the return up to 1st April, 1979 and would be hit by the Explanation in question only if she did not do so up to that date, but the returns were actually file on 16-3-1979. Therefore, even upon the language of the statute, the assessee's case does not fall within the Explanation 3 at all. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
