9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in the case of Swatamber Dass for asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1972-73 which he has followed in the case of Digvijay Kumar. We would first discuss the facts in the case of Swatamber Dass. Swatamber Dass filed wealth-tax returns on 9th Now., 1978 for asst. yrs 1969-70 to 1972-73 (years under appeal) as also for asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1978-79. All these returns were filed in the status of HUF, though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in HUF status and was carrying on family business of money lending and was under the impression that its status was HUF and that the assessee had filed the wealth tax returns suo motu and that the assessee was running an industrial concern for which the assessee thought that is was entitled to exemption under s. 5(1) (xxxii) which exemption, however, was allowable only from asst. yr. 1973-74 (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent for levy of penalty under s. 27(1)(a), relying on Kunjbiharilal Laltra Prasad vs. ITO (1983) 144 ITR 583 (All), where it was held that though the assessee was not under any obligation to file a return below the exemption limit, yet when deliberately filed a return, he had to file it within time and the levy of penalty for delay in filing the return was valid. Reliance was also placed on CIT vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. counsel for the assessee relied on Rani Indra Devi (1983) 15 Taxman 159 (All), where it was held that even if the assessee s explanation was acceptable, Department has to produce material to show that late filing of return was deliberate and the initial burden was always on the Department and only after this burden was discharged that the assessee was required to prove the facts which are in i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Swetambar Dass and he also filed wealth-tax return on9th Nov., 1978for asst. yrs. 1972-73. The WTO levied penalty of Rs. 3,116. AAC cancelled the penalty following his order in Swetambar Dass whih order we have already confirmed. Under these circumstances we confirm AAC s order cancelling penalty in the case of Digvijay Kumar. Cross objections in this case are also not pressed and are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
