9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax arose as a result of disclosure made under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975 and the assets disclosed mostly consisted on ornaments of personal use which, if excluded, would reduce the wealth below the taxable limit. It was also submitted that the assessee was assessed to income-tax as her first assessment was completed on 28th March, 1977 and she had an impression if she was liable for wealth-tax, the Department would issue notice calling for the returns. The WTO did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the reasons that filing returns voluntarily does not explain the reason leading to prevention of filing returns within the time. Being assessed under IT Act cannot be equated to be previously assessed to wealth-tax. Disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri) 69 : (1982) 136 ITR 729 (Ori); 2. Taraknath Paul vs. CWT (1983) 32 CTR (Cal) 61 : (1983) 142 ITR 468 (Cal). The learned AAC agreed with the WTO that the appellant was not wealth-tax assessee previously, and, therefore, Expln. 3 of s. 18(1)(c) of the Act is attracted. He also opined that the appellant being lady could get legal advice from her counsel and, therefore, had she intended to filing the wealth-tax returns in time, she could have filed the same after consulting the counsel. He confirmed the penalties imposed. Hence, these appeals before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the returns for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1977-78 were filed on 21st Feb., 1983 and 10th Jan., 1983 respectively. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id returns and they are non-est. In that case he submitted, it has to be presumed that the assessee did not file any return of wealth-tax and these two assessment years and, therefore, the penalties as per Expln. 3 of s. 18(1)(c) were validly imposed by the WTO. For the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80, he submitted, no, reasonable cause had been shown by the assessee for non-filing of the returns and, therefore, penalties were validly imposed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Expln. 3 of s. 18(1)(c) runs as under: "Where any person who has not previously been assessed under this Act fails without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in cl. (a) or as the case may be, cl.(b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 17A, a return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t may be noticed that like s. 139(4) of the IT Act, 1961, no time limit has been prescribed for filing the return in this Act and the only condition is that the return should be filed before the assessment is completed. In respect of the contention of the learned D.R. that the assessee cannot be permitted to take new plea, it may be stated that it is within the competence of the appellant to raise a new plea in respect of the grounds raised by him in the memorandum of appeal and he is only barred to make any contention or submission newly if the relevant facts are not in record and if to decide the new facts are to be brought in record. No dispute in respect of the validity of the return was raised by the Department in earlier stages and ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
