9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71-72 20 months 24,534 11th February, 1981 3. 1972-73 17 months 11,849 11th February,1981 4. 1973-74 35 months 2,315 11th February 1981 5. 1974-75 . 796 11th February, 1981 4. The said penalty orders were contested by the assessee and it was argued on behalf of the assessee by Shri C.S. Aggarwal, the learned advocate that the assessee was ignorant about the provisions of the WT Act, and that she was under the impression that the WT Department would issue the notice for filing the returns. His further contention was that the assessee was under the impression that the assets held by the assessee were not taxable. It was pointed out that it was only in December, 1973, when she was informed by Shri K.S. Bajaj, Advocate that she was liable to Wealth-Tax. It was submitted that as soon as the assessee became aware of the fact, the returns were filed voluntarily. It was also pointed out that the income-tax returns had been filed in time. The learned advocate explained that explanation on the above lines was furnished before the learned WTO while replying to the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had filed voluntarily returns and the assessee was under the bona fide belief regarding exemption limit etc. Reliance was also placed on Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC), for the purpose that ignorance of law could be a valid excuse. 7. The matters were thereafter set aside by 'D' Bench of the Tribunal,Delhi, vide consolidated order dt. 20th Jan.,1984, in WTA Nos. 1198 to 1202(Del) 83 for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1974-75, to the file of the learned AAC of Wealth-tax to give a finding whether the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the wealth-tax returns for the years under consideration, with the following observation: "7. It is clear from the narration of facts given above that the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the wealth-tax returns has not been considered either by the WTO or by the AAC. At the hearing before us, arguments were addressed on question of law where any mens rea was necessary for delay in filing the wealth-tax return. As observed by Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Patron Dass Raja Ram Beri (1981) 24 CTR (P H) 258 (FB) : (1981) 132 ITR 671 (P H) (FB) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnish the return of wealth before the specified due date.". 10. On behalf of the assessee, the learned advocate Shri C.S. Aggarwal, once again repeated and reiterated all the submissions seen to have been made earlier before various authorities. Our attention was invited to page 3 of the paper book being a copy of a consolidated explanation said to have been filed by the assessee before the learned WTO in reply to the notices under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. Page 5 of the paper book was mentioned to point out that the learned Advocate Shri Kishan Singh Bajaj advised the assessee on19th Dec., 1973that Wealth-tax returns were required to be filed for the years under consideration. Our attention was also invited to page 48 of the paper book bring a copy of consolidated order dt.25 March, 1983 of the learned AAC of Wealth-tax while deciding the assessee's first appeals at the first instance. Page 50 of the paper book was pointed out containing the copy of the Tribunal's order dt.20th Jan., 1984, by which the first consolidated appellate order was set aside. According to the learned counsel the learned AAC of wealth-tax decided the appeals without properly appreciating the assessee's evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n regarding delay in filing the returns. At page 3 of order under challenge it is seen as if the learned AAC took the view that assessee's explanation was considered by her predecessor while passing the order dt.23rd May, 1983. Thus in view of that observation the assessee's explanation is not seen to have been discussed in detail in the impugned order. The facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs were not found fault with on behalf of the Revenue. The learned advocate Shri Kishan Singh Bajaj advised the assessee on19th Dec., 1973and thereafter she filed the return for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1973-74 on8th Jan., 1974and for 1974-75 on24th Sept., 1974as the income-tax return for that year, i.e., 1974-75 was also filed on24th Sept., 1974. The returns are seen to have been filed voluntarily as there was no notice by the learned WTO. In view of the fact that the assessee was illiterate and unaware of the complexities and complications of the laws and she was not earlier assessed, it is possible to infer that she was under a bona fide belief that wealth-tax returns were not required to be filed. But after having obtained the opinion she acted with speed. This is not in dispute. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
