9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of wealth for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 in time ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in law the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Wealth-tax Officer levying penalty on the assessee ? " The facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. The return of wealth under s. 14(1) of the Act was filed by him on January 15, 1971, and the same was due on June 30, 1969. Thus, there was a delay of 18 months in the filing of the return for the assessment year 1969-70 and of six months in filing the return for the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee filed the returns in the status of an HUF disclosing an income of Rs. 1,07,550 for the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1969-70 and a penalty of Rs. 1,165 in respect of the assessment year 1970-71. The appeals preferred by the assessee to the AAC were allowed. The AAC held that the question regarding the status of the assessee in respect of the assets received by him on a partial partition of the HUF was not free from doubt and, therefore, the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the returns. The revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the AAC quashing the penalties levied on the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the revenue and held that the cause shown by the assessee for the delay in filing the returns was not sufficient and, therefore, the WTO was justified in imposing the penalties on the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HUF, while there were no such conditions in existence for determining the status of a person as an HUF under the provisions of the Act. In any case, according to him, this was a matter not free from doubt and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee deliberately filed the return after the prescribed time and, therefore, was liable to penalty on that ground. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee cannot be upheld. Whether the assessee in the circumstances of the case had a reasonable cause for filing the returns after the prescribed time is a question of fact. The Tribunal has considered the explanation of the assessee and has held that the assessee had no reasonable cause for the late filing of the return. In the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
