WEALTH TAX OFFICER Vs. RAMRISHPAL/SHRIPAL
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Egbert Singh, Accountant Member -
(1.) THIS is an appeal by the revenue which is directed against the order of the AAC by which he has deleted the penalty imposed by the WTO under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (''the Act").
(2.) From the orders of the authorities below the relevant facts, as obtained are that the assessee is the legal heir of late Shri Kapoorchand who died on 7-7-1972. The wealth-tax return was due to be filed on 31-7-1972. From the order of the WTO it is seen that the return was filed on 2-9-1975, i.e., there was a delay of 25 months. Notice was issued by the WTO under Section 18(1)(a). From his order it is seen that the assessee was silent which, according to the WTO, would go to suggest that the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to file the return within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the WTO noted that he was satisfied that the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return within the time and has committed a default under Section I8(1)(a) for which he was liable to penalty. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,650.
On appeal by the assessee, the AAC noted the contention made on behalf of the assessee that the return was filed, as mentioned above, by the legal heir as and when he came to know about the liability to file the return. It was submitted that the legal heir was not liable to the penalty for the default which was committed by the deceased person, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Yawarunnissa Begum v. WTO  100 ITR 645. Accordingly, the AAC cancelled the penalty. Hence, this appeal before us.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned departmental representative that there was no justification for the AAC to cancel the penalty in spite of the fact that there was a clear default of the assessee to file the return within the time and that in particular the delay was to the extent of 25 months. According to him, the default was committed by the assessee for which the penalty was correctly imposed by the WTO and the AAC went wrong in accepting or applying the ratio of the decision in the above Andhra Pradesh High Court case. IT is submitted that on the facts of the case, the order of the AAC may be reversed and that of the WTO may be restored.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.