9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 972. The assessee was then served upon on 2nd Feb., 1973 a notice under s. 14(2) dt. 19th Jan., 1973 requiring him to file the return of wealth which too was not complied with. The assessee was then served with the notice under s. 16(4) of the Act but that too went un responded despite reminders. The WTO, therefore, framed assessment under s. 16(5) and initiated penalty proceedings under ss. 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(b) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee before the ITO was that his accounts were in the state of mess and he was unable to assess the exact position of his income and wealth as a result of which all along he suffered ex parte assessments under s. 144 of the IT Act and under s. 16(5) of the WT Act. However, in setting right the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is accounts and, therefore, much delay was caused. It is also the contention of learned counsel that the WTO made a mistake in computing the period of delay. According to him, it should have been computed from the date of expiry of the period of notice by which the assessee was called upon to furnish the return. He in support placed reliance upon Addl. CIT vs. Ram Pratap Shankarlal (1979) 117 ITR 662 (MP). It is also his contention that there was no occasion for invoking s. 18(1)(b) for levy of penalty on the allegation that s. 16(4) was not complied by the assessee. His line of reasoning is that when return has not been at all filed no notice under s. 16(4) could be issued. It is also his contention that the notice did not specify the deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y return of wealth no notice under s. 16(4) can be issued. The words "any person. upon whom a notice has been served under sub-s. (2) of that s. 14" appearing in s. 16(4) are significant. The WTO could for the purpose of making an assessment issue a notice to the assessee under s. 16(4) requiring him to produce such documents as he might have required since the assessee was served a notice under s. 14(2). However, there is a sharp distinction between s. 16(2) and s. 16(4), viz., that under s. 16(2) an assessee is required to produce such evidence as he thinks fit and proper in support of his case. On the other hand notice under s. 16(4) requires the WTO to specify such documents which he requires to be filed by the assessee. There is no mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
