9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the W.T. Act, 1957, is as follows : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not competent to entertain the appeal against the order passed u/s. 18(1)(a) ? " The facts briefly stated are that the return under the W.T. Act, for the assessment year 1971-72, was filed on 19th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 18(1)(a) when he has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return within time. The WTO who passes an order imposing penalty under this section has to decide the questions whether the return is late and whether there was reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the return. He can impose penalty after he decides on these two points against the assessee. The Commissioner's jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tarily and in good faith, made full disclosure of his net wealth ; and in the case referred to in clause (ii) of this sub-section has, prior to the detection by the Wealth-tax Officer of the concealment of particulars of assets or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of the assets or debts in respect of which the penalty is imposable, voluntarily and in good faith, made full and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had made full disclosure of his net wealth voluntarily and in good faith prior to the issue of notice under s. 14(2), has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of the tax or interest in consequence of an order passed in respect of the relevant assessment year. The circumstances which the Commissioner has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty and he refuses to waive penalty under s. 18(2A). The Tribunal, in our opinion, was wrong in holding that the AAC had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The view that we are taking is fully supported by the decisions of the Karnataka, Madras and Delhi High Courts: (see CWT v. B. Kempanna [1980] 126 ITR 825 (Kar), CWT v. M.K.S. Vanavarayar [1980] 122 ITR 184 (Mad) and Shakuntala Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
