9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their replies indicating therein that they sought extension for filing the returns late, as their accounts in the firm were not received and the assets being only their capital in the firm M/s. Laxmi Motor Stores, Maharani Road, Indore. It was also pleaded that as soon as the returns of income-tax were filed after the finalisation of the accounts, the assessee filed their wealth-tax returns also. But the WTO not convinced with the plea of the assessees held them liable for levy of penalties and thereby levied penalties as under: Shri Vishandas M. Pahuaj: . Asst. yr. Rs. 1972-73 875 1974-75 2,040 1975-76 3,575 Shri Lachhmandas V. Pahuja: . 1975 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held to him. For asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1974-75 the penalty imposed by the WTO is confirmed. For asst. yr. 1973-74 since the extension was granted upto 30th Sep, 1973 before which the return was filed, the penalty of Rs. 976 is cancelled. For asst. yr. 1975-76, even after considering the extension granted upto 31st Aug, 1976, the default to my mind remains for the period of three months and hence the penalty imposed by the WTO is confirmed." In respect of Shri Lachhmandas V. Pahuja, the AAC held as under: "In this penalty appeal for late filing of wealth-tax return, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that extension of time was applied for upto 31st Aug, 1975. The return was filed on 11th Nov, 1975. It has not been explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs in the case of the assessee. Firstly, the case cited relates to late filing of the return in the income-tax proceedings and in this respect we may observe that the assessee s case is under the WT Act and in the income-tax proceedings the assessee have already been penalised for late filing of the return. It may be pointed out that the plea of the assessee is that since their wealth was only the capital assets in the firm, they had a valid reason for not filing the returns under the wealth-tax and as such we hold that both the assessee being partners of 25% share in the firm were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the returns of wealth in time, as the accounts of the firm were not finalised. We have also seen that in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
