9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t "), calling upon the assessee to furnish return of wealth for each of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee, however, failed to furnish the return. The WTO proceeded under s. 16(5) of the Act and determined the assessee's net wealth at Rs. 1,70,000 in each of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal, a failure to furnish the returns in response to the notice under s. 14(2), by itself, attracted penalty. In the result, it set aside the orders passed by the AAC and restored the orders of the WTO levying penalty as stated above. It is in the background of the above facts that at the instance of the assessee the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion under s. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring the orders of the Wealth-tax Officer levying penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Act in each of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?" The question whether or not the assessee's net wealth in each of the assessment years under reference was taxable has an important bearing on the question of levy of penalty. Penalty under s. 18(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to the conclusion that failure to furnish return of wealth by the assessee was not without reasonable cause. In view of this finding recorded by the AAC, the Tribunal ought to have examined whether or not the assessee's net wealth was taxable in the light of the provisions contained in s. 5(1)(xxxii). If there was not enough material to come to the conclusion whether the provisions of s. 5(1)(x ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
