9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 18(1)(a) of the Act, there is a legal presumption of lack of reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the return which precludes the assessee from agitating that question in appeal ? " The assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Act for both the years for late filing of the returns. For the assessment year 1968-69, the Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee filed the return on September 5, 1970, showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,83,566 which was assessed as such. Although the date of filing of the return was extended up to August 31, 1968, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 18(1)(a) with which the assessee complied and contended that the accounts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he default continued up to the date on which the assessee actually filed the returns for both the years. Accordingly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the contentions of the assessee regarding the existence of reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns. In respect of the quantum of the penalty, the assessee contended that the same was required to be calculated at the prevailing rate on the first day of the relevant assessment year. According to the Wealth-tax Officer, the delay had occurred from point to point and as such the penalty for the completed months had to be calculated as per the provisions of law as prevalent at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the penalty. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of its order. When a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, it will not be a question arising out of its order notwithstanding that it may arise on the findings given by it. But we do not find that the present question comes under any of the three conditions as laid down by the apex court. Similarly, regarding the submission of Mr. Joshi that the question was referred as per direction of this court, we are of the opinion that merely because the question is referred at the instance of the High Court, that cannot be a ground for answering the question under section 256. In CIT v. Smt. Anusuya Devi [1968] 68 ITR 750, the apex court held that : " The High Court is, however, not bound to answer a question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
