9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee's case does not warrant levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? " The brief facts leading to the reference are the following : The cases relate to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1969-70. On March 30, 1967, the assessee's representative wrote a letter to the Wealth-tax Officer informing him that the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67 were due and that it would take some time for them to finalise the return. In the meanwhile, a sum of Rs. 4,500 was paid towards probable wealth-tax payable for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67. Thereafter nothing happened. While so, on January 5, 1971, the Wealth-tax Officer issued a notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ---------------------------------------- (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 1963-64 3,46,600 1,725 64,189 1964-65 3,92,000 1,960 46,060 1965-66 4,50,200 2,251 64,236 1966-67 4,48,900 2,245 64,164 1967-68 4,62,400 2,312 65,433 1968-69 4,55,500 2,278 63,969 1969-70 4,63,500 2,318 56,010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aggrieved by the levy of penalties, the assessee preferred appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner though held that there was no reasonable cause for the belated submission of the returns, applying the ratio laid down by this court in CGT v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." Looking to the aforesaid observations and in view of our finding that the breach if anything was only technical or venial, we hold that the facts of the case do not warrant the imposition of penalty under section 18(1)(a). In view of this finding, the appeals of the Department would automatically fall to be dismissed as no penalty survives." Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has caused the reference to be made as stated above. Mr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kalyan Das ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
