9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der s. 17 of the WT Act. The return was filed on 11th April, 1980 on total wealth of Rs. 1,01,550. The wealth was actually computed at Rs. 1,18,680. The WTO, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings to which the assessee did not give any reply. Ultimately a penalty of Rs. 16,460 was levied. The said penalty has been confirmed by the AAC on appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has come up in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering all the facts and circumstance of the case we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where the delay in the filing of the appeal should be condoned. The assessee had actually moved the AAC for rectification of the order passed by him on appeal. In those proceedings it was submitted that the assessee was entitled to exemption of Rs. 1 lac under s. 5(1)(iv) and as such the net wealth of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt cause for condemning the delay which we do accordingly. 3. Coming to the merits, the assessee probably wrongly failed to claim exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act in respect of assets held by a partnership firm of which the assessee is a partner. Although the law on the point is doubtful as to whether the assessee can at all be entitled to this exemption even some Benches of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
