9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jections are filed by the assessee for the same AYs. 2. Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, Adv. represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the assessee though liable for filing Wealth Tax Returns had not filed his WT Returns within the due date. Consequently, notice u/s.17 was issued to the assessee and the returns of wealth were filed. The only issue in the appeals was against the levy of interest u/s.17B of the Act. It was a submission that the net wealth returns filed by the assessee was accepted. However, interest u/s.17B(1) for the AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 was levied and interest u/s.17B(3) for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 was levied. It was a submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginally and return is filed subsequently in pursuance of notice under section 17. No doubt sub-section (3) does not apply to the facts of the case as in the present cases assessments have been done for the first time and, therefore, we have to see the applicability of sub-section (1) of section 17B which envisages the following situations: (i) Return is furnished after the due date under sub-section (1) of section 14; (ii) Return is furnished after the due date under section 15; (iii) Return is furnished after the due date in response to notice under section 16(4)(m); (iv) Where no return is filed before completion of assessment. Section 14(1) deals with voluntary filing of the return on the part of the assessee, for which a due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue date was not available with the AO. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 6. In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not be asked to do the impossible. It was a submission that admittedly the Wealth Tax Returns had not been filed as per the due date provided in Sec.14(1) or in Sec.15. It was a submission that the time limit having expired, there was no provision for the assessee to file his returns beyond the due date. It was a submission that consequently, the assessee had to await the issuance of notice u/s.17 of the Act. It was a submission that the period between the due date for filing of the returns and the date of issuance of notice u/s.17 should be excluded, in so far as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date. The Revenue has not been able to dispute this fact. Even considering the submission of the Ld.DR that the return was not before the AO, the same would not stand, in so far as, that is not the ground raised by the Revenue. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt.M.R. Prabhavathy v. ACIT referred to supra, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 stands confirmed. 9. In the result, appeals of the Revenue in WTA Nos.20, 21 & 22 stands dismissed. 10. Cross-Objections filed by the assessee are in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). We have already reversed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 and confirmed the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
