9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is contended by the petitioner that the order of the Commissioner which has been filed as Ex. E does not refer to any facts or circumstances justifying a conclusion that the returns had not been filed voluntarily and the conclusion is arbitrary and untenable and the rejection of the applications on this ground is unjustified. The facts that are not in controversy are the following : For the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 and also for the subsequent two years the assessee had filed returns under the W.T. Act in the status of an individual. The assessments for the years under consideration in that status had also been completed. Thereafter, notices had been issued under s. 17 of the Act in respect of those assessments and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had filed returns in the status of an individual, but later filed returns in the status of an HUF and assessments were completed in that status accepting the plea of the assessee have been accepted by the Commissioner in his order. The Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the returns were not filed voluntarily. The portion of the order is as follows : " The assessee's claim as to the status of ' Hindu undivided family ' was accepted and the assessments for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72 were completed on 25-2-1972. For the delay in filing the returns of wealth in the status of HUF, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act. The assessee's prayer is for waiver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to include all the items of taxable wealth then he should be considered as having satisfied the above condition. " In [1975] 98 ITR 359 (Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. CWT), the Allahabad High Court held that if an assessee has filed returns before the issue of a notice under s. 17 of the Act he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under s. 18(2A) of the Act. The High Court took the view that issue of a notice meant actual service of the notice under s. 17 of the Act and this view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in [1975] 99 ITR 581 (CWT v. Kundan Lal Behari Lal). It is, therefore, clear that the notice under s. 17 of the Act must relate to the particular return in regard to which penalty for failur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
