9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that she was not assessable we to wealth-tax and no return was required to be filed by her ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sub Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,900 under section 18(1)(a) as sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax ?" 2 The present reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. 3 Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The assessee is an individual. In respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 her wealth-tax returns were due on August 15, 1973, and Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying with the agent for investment, who had also made investment without the knowledge of the assessee ; that, in any case, without prejudice to the above submissions, the law governing the imposition of penalty stood modified with effect from April 1, 1977 and according to the law, penalty was to be calculated with reference to tax and not with reference to the wealth and that, therefore, necessary relief should be granted to the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the above submissions of the assessee. 6 The assessee appealed against the aforesaid order to the Tribunal and the same pleas which were taken by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Wealth-tax Officer were reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not controverted by the Department. In the case of Rani Indra Devi v. CWT [1983] 15 Taxman 159 (All) it was held that even if the assessee's explanation was unacceptable, Department has to produce material to show that late filing of the return was deliberate and the initial burden was always on the Department and only after this burden was discharged that the assessee was required to prove the facts which are in her special knowledge. In our opinion, the Department has failed to discharge its burden in this case. The finding of the Tribunal in the assessment year 1975-76 cancelling penalty imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Act is indicative of the fact that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause on the basis of bona fide be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
