9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, whether the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is vitiated by its having relied on the following circumstances : 1. That the penalty under section 18(1) (a) for the years 1969-70 to 1970-71 had been waived in the case of Shri C. L. Khunnah ; 2. That the penalty for the year 1971-72 had been cancelled by the Tribunal in the case of Shri C. L. Khunnah on the ground that Shri C. L. Khunnah had been prevented by sufficient cause from filing his return within time in respect of that year ; 3. That the Department had not questioned the cancellation of the penalty by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the case of Shri M. C. Khunnah; 4. That the assessee's claim that he w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n time. This was contested on behalf of the Department alleging that the books of account of S. L. Khunnah and Sons were completed a long time back, and that even the income-tax returns of the firm as well as the partners constituting the same had been filed, and therefore, there was no difficulty for the assessee in filing the wealth-tax returns. About the claims of D. C. Khunnah, the Department pleaded that none of his claims affected the wealth of the assessee. The Wealth-tax Officer levied penalty for the year 1969-70, against which the assessee went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed and the penalty was cancelled by order dated March 31, 1975. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner believed the difficulties pointed out by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73-75. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing his return within time. The Tribunal cancelled the penalties. In this way, the questions that have been mentioned by us in the beginning of the judgment were referred for our opinion. So far as the first question is concerned, as to what will constitute sufficient cause or, in other words, whether, the assessee was prevented by reasons beyond his control is essentially a question of fact. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found in his judgment for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in the case of S. L. Kunnah that the returns could not be filed in time becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iplined by system. Those who exercise discretion will remember that: "An appeal to a judge's discretion is an appeal to his judicial discretion. The discretion must be exercised not in opposition to, but in accordance with, established principles of law." Consequently, our view is that discretion must be exercised not in opposition to, but in accordance with, the established principles of law. We, consequently, answer the first question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was right in finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the wealth-tax returns in time for assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. So far as the second question is concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
