9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, in respect of the delay in filing the returns filed originally on the basis of which the assessments were made on 10th Oct., 1972. In respect of asst. yr. 1966-67, the WTO had issued the penalty notice and served it on the assessee on 29th July, 1973. There appears to have been no response. In respect of the later three years, however, the WTO had issued and got served the penalty notices on the assessee on 7th Feb., 1973. The assessee had replied, stating that the CWT, Karnataka, was being moved for waiver of penalty under s. 18(2)(a) of the WT Act and that, therefore, the proceedings may be kept pending. The WTO observed that even these petitions were disposed of by the CWT in his order passed on 12th Feb., 1975, refusing to waive the penalties. Later, in response to another notice, the assessee had offered an explanation in its letter dt. 2nd Feb., 1976 and had requested that penalty proceedings may be dropped. The WTO, however, by his orders passed for all these years dt. 18th Feb., 1976 observed that the assessee was being assessed to wealth-tax, right from the asst. yr. 1961-62 and it was assisted by a chartered accountant, that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e asst. yr. 1969-70 that the amended provisions would be applicable. Regarding the 4th ground raised by the assessee to the effect that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns of net wealth, the AAC observed that the delay had occurred because of delay in getting the properties valued, He further observed that in respect of the asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, the assessee had filed the returns of net wealth on 7th Jan., 1972 voluntarily, before the issue of any notice by the Department and that it was only for the asst. yr. 1966-67 that notice was issued under s. 17 of the WT Act, and that even in respect of the reopened assessments reopening was done only on 6th April, 1973, subsequent to the filing of the revised returns on 7th Jan., 1972 itself. The AAC also observed that the assessee, in filing the returns of wealth in 1972 had included the machine shop and the store room valued at Rs. 28,800 and Rs. 17,000 respectively though they were not in existence at that time and this went to establish the bona fides of the assessee. The AAC, therefore, held that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns and there was no justification, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade a claim that a partition had taken place on 30th March, 1974 by application dt. 4th Dec., 1978. He further stated that under the IT Act, the assessee had filed an application under s. 171 of the IT Act, 1961 on 5th March, 1975 in respect of which no orders had been passed. Though the WTO had accepted the claim of partition made in the wealth-tax proceedings for asst. yr. 1974-75, with w.e.f. 20th March, 1974, yet on the date when the penalty orders were passed, the claim of partition was not accepted. In this connection, he relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Gauri Shankar Chandrabhan vs. CIT(4) for the proposition that the penalty orders passed on the HUF in respect of which the partition claim was accepted later that the date of penalty order, was valid. The ld. departmental representative further sought to argue that even the order passed by the WTO under s. 20 of the WT Act in respect of the asst. yr. 1974-75 is not valid by making reference to the partition deed dt. 30th March, 1974. Regarding the merits of the case, the ld. departmental representative submitted that the AAC erred in holding that there was reasonable cause for the delay. He referred to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears should have been completed before 31st March, 1975 as per the above provision but the penalties for the above years were levied only on 18th Feb., 1976. He, therefore, strenuously urged that the penalty orders passed for the asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 were clearly barred by limitation and that the AAC erred in rejecting the assessee's contention in this regard. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the opinion that the order of the AAC for all the four years under appeal should be upheld for reason that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns. At this stage, it would be useful to give the details of the due dates for filing the returns, the dates on which the returns were filed, the dates of completion of the original assessments, the dates of service of notice under s. 17, the dates of completion of revised assessments, the wealth-tax levied and the penalties levied for the assessment years under appeal: Assessment year: 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Due date (as per W.T.O) 1-7-1966 1-7-1967 1-7-1968 1-7-1969 Due date (as per A.A.C.) 30-9-1966 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
