9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Branch, to state a case and refer the following common question in respect of assessment years 1964-65 to 1970-71. " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalties and whether the finding that the assessee's conduct was not contumacious or deliberate is based on any evidence and, if so, whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain immovable properties were HUF properties and the value of those properties was not to be included in his net wealth and that it was only when he received the notice for the assessment years 1969-70, that he got the properties, both movable and immovable, valued by the chartered valuer and on the receipt of his report he submitted, the returns. In his returns he included the value of those prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the opinion that the delay in the submission of the returns was not intentional. It; has further been held in the case of Shankuntla Mehra v. CWT (1976] 102 ITR 301 (Delhi), that the mere failure to file the return within the time allowed did not make the assessee liable to penalty and there had to be contumacious or deliberate default. We do not find the assessee's conduct as contumacious or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials relevant to the question and if a final forum of fact relying on these facts comes to its conclusion that there was no contumacy, we do not think a question of law would arise. A Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Nilamani Ghosh [1976] CTR (Orissa) 118, held that whether there was a situation requiring penalty to be invoked was one of fact and no legal question arose. In a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
