9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year became aware that return for 1974-75 should have also been filed. The assessee, accordingly, filed the return voluntarily for the asst. yr. 1974-75 also on 29th August 1975. There was thus delay of a period of 12 months. The net wealth of the assessee was computed as per assessment order dt. 15th March 1978 on a figure of Rs. 1,72,825. This net wealth included, inter alia, share of the assessee in agricultural lands and other immovable property amounting to Rs. 46,600. The assessee also had deposits with M/s Krishna Cotton Ginning Pressing Mills, Panipat, which have been taken in the computation of net wealth at Rs. 53,060. After the above assessment was completed, the WTO issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why penalty ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of CWT vs. Ramnik Lal D. Mehta (1982) 28 CTR (Ori) 69 : (1982) 136 ITR 729 (Ori). He emphasised that the judgment of the Orissa High Court and the facts of that case fits like hands in gloves. The assessee is, therefore, entitled to relief. 4. The revenue, however, opposed these submissions on the ground that the statute has provided checks and balances to keep the taxpayer on the right track and the imposition of penalty for delay in furnishing the return in one of such checks and balances. Therefore, the conduct of the assessee may be viewed with this background in mind. The ld. Representative then contended that the assessee had filed the return with a taxable net wealth and as such h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered before imposition of penalty as per letter dt. 16th Sep., 1979 referred to supra. For the reasons best known to the WTO this explanation was considered while making the impugned order. In fact, the assessee had written another letter dt. 25th Nov., 1979 to the WTO urging that penalty proceedings may be dropped for the additional reason that the assessee had share in the firm of M/s Krishna Cotton Ginning Pressing Mills, Panipat, which had certain properties, the share in which the assessee believed would be exempt u/s 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act. The assessee submitted before the WTO that if the assessee's net wealth was computed on the bona fide belief of the assessee with regard to the items considered as exempt, the return wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
