9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hown wealth of Rs. 1,76,616 which came to be revised subsequently to Rs. 2,21,229. The WTO while framing the wealth tax assessment did not initiate any proceedings u/s 18(1)(a), though as per the said assessment order, it is apparent that the WTO had initiated proceedings u/s 18(1)(c). The WTO, observing in his order u/s 18(1)(a) that the assessee did not respond either to the show cause notice or to the notice fixing the hearing, levied a penalty of Rs. 7,720. 3. When the assessee carried the matter before the AAC the AAC also confirmed the levy of penalty ex parte mainly observing that the assessee did not avail of any opportunity of show cause notice or hearing before the WTO. It is the action of the AAC which is contested by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en cancelled by the very same AAC. She place her reliance on 114 ITR 370 wherein their Lordships of the Madras High Court held that any delay in the preparation of the particulars of the assessee's income cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant while considering whether any consequential delays in the filing of the wealth-tax returns was for reasonable cause or not. 5. After taking into consideration the rival submissions, we are unable to sustain the orders of any of the two lower authorities. Following is the order passed by the WTO while levying the penalty: "A show Cause notice u/s 18(2) was served on the assessee on 7th Feb,1977 for default u/s 18(1)(a). There was no response to this notice. A further opportunity was given to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings. He was unable to show even from the orders if such penalty was initiated by the WTO in course of assessment proceedings. 6. It is also apparent by a look at the original order of the WTO levying the penalty that it is a cyclostyled order and it has been passed on 16th March,1979 without giving any opportunity to the assessee between 16th May, 1977 till the date he passed an order levying penalty. We do not want to enter into the debate about the presence of the assessee's counsel on 26th May,1980 before the AAC, when the hearing in the assessee's appeal was fixed at 11.45 a.m. but from para 2 of his order, it is apparent that he has confirmed that levy of penalty merely on the basis that neither show cause notice was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
