9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). In the explanation dated12-11-1982, the assessee stated that the return could not be filed due to the illness of her elder daughter, Kumari Shalini Sondhi, who was suffering from 'Lymphoblastic Leukemia' since 1973. She was initially admitted in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS),New Delhi, and since there was no treatment in the country, she was treated at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, from6-9-1973till the end of December 1973. Thereafter, she was looked after by the AIIMS,New Delhi. She had a relapse in the beginning of June 1975 which necessitated her confinement to the hospital till the end of July 1975 and was treated in consultation with US doctors. She had off and on to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved since the penalty imposed by the WTO has been reduced. Shri Hardatta Sharma, the learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the assessee's reply dated12-11-1982and the papers relating to the illness of the assessee's daughter, submitted that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return for the entire period. He, therefore, argued that no penalty should have been sustained by the learned AAC. He also submitted that the mere failure to file the return within the time allowed, did not make the assessee liable to penalty and that there had to be contumacious or deliberate default. He also argued that the onus was on the department to establish that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Haryana High Court in CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri [1981] 132 ITR 671, for the proposition that deliberate defiance of law need not be proved for levy of penalty for delay in filing the return. In reply, Shri Sharma, for the assessee, submitted that even though the wordings of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act') and section 18(1)(a) of the 1957 Act were in pari materia, no decision had been cited on behalf of the revenue specifically with reference to section 18(1)(a). 6. We have considered the rival submissions as also the various decisions referred to above. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the doctrine of mens rea is attracted in the case of proceedings under section 18(1)(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hra, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the onus is on the department to establish that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing the return within time. In the case of CIT v. Gangaram Chapolia [1976] 103 ITR 613 (Ori.) (FB), it was held that the burden of proof of reasonable cause is on the assessee as the matter is within his personal knowledge and that this burden can be discharged by a preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case and not necessarily by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of I.M. Patel Co., it was held that it is for the revenue to establish as an ingredient that the failure in the particular case was without reasonable cause and that once this initial burden, which may be slight, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt, if any, committed, is committed on the last date allowed to file the return and the default cannot be one committed every month thereafter. The words 'for every month during which the default continued' were held to indicate only the multiplier to be adopted in determining the quantum of penalty and did not have the effect of making the default in question a continuing one. However, the reference to the law applicable being that in force on the last date on which the return had to be filed, was made with reference to the computation of penalty and not with reference to the levy or leviability of penalty. 9. We may, therefore, now examine the material on the record regarding the existence of the reasonable cause for the default. The ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on11-1-1978, it stands to reason that the wealth-tax return could also have been filed on11-1-1978as the only material which would have been required for filing the same, would have been the information contained in the income-tax return. There is nothing on the record to show as to what was the other material which the assessee could not collect up to11-1-1978for filing the wealth-tax return. Therefore, in our view, the learned AAC was fully justified in holding that the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return was established only up to11-1-1978and not thereafter. In this connection it may also be mentioned that the contentions raised on behalf of the revenue that the assessee was visiting Bombay for the purposes of busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
