9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper opportunity was allowed to the assessee to rebut the material collected behind the back of the assessee ? (2) Whether the Wealth-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under s. 18(1)(c) is not barred by limitation ? " For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee filed a return of net wealth on November 5, 1969, disclosing a net wealth of Rs. 1,28,024. In declaring the above net wealth, the assessee had shown the amount of money in circulation in a money-lending business carried on by him at Rs. 45,000. It was the contention of the assessee that no books of account were maintained for this business and the amount of Rs. 45,000 was shown in the return by estimate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g capital shown by the assessee and determined by the WTO. Against the levy of penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal contending that the order passed by the IAC of I.T. was barred by limitation and there was violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as he was not given any opportunity to rebut the facts taken into consideration. Both these contentions were negatived by the Tribunal. Regarding the first question, it is not shown that any prejudice has been caused to the assessee, accepting his contention that he was not given any opportunity to rebut the facts taken into consideration by the IAC in imposing the penalty. The WTO issued a notice under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act to the assessee to show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found to be correct. In these circumstances, there has been absolutely no violation of the principles of natural justice, as alleged by the learned counsel for the assessee. " This court in M.C.C. No. 392 of 1978 (Sardar Pritam Singh v. CIT) decided on October 20, 1981 , held that even hearing of the assessee before the Tribunal was sufficient and no prejudice is caused, although he was refused adjournment by the IAC. There is no denial of reasonable opportunity. Now, the second question referred for our opinion. In this case, the penalty order was passed on March 27, 1972. As per s. 18(5) of the W.T. Act, before its amendment which came into force on April 1, 1971, the penalty could be imposed before expiration of two years from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
