WEALTH TAX OFFICER Vs. RAVINDRA M PATEL
LAWS(IT)-1994-1-15
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 28,1994

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.N. Singhal, Accountant Member - (1.) UNDER the Wealth-tax Act these three appeals by the department and the corresponding three cross-objections by the assessee involve common issues. They were heard together. Hence they are disposed of by a consolidated order.
(2.) Basically, the dispute is about penalty for delay in submission of wealth-tax returns and quantums thereof. Basic facts and figures are furnished by the learned Departmental Representative in a tabular form somewhat as follows:- JUDGEMENT_1054_TLIT0_19940.htm Note 1 : Difference in wealth is due to valuation of agricultural land. Note 2 : Penalties levied shown against side head No. 5 are on the basis of original assessment orders. Consequent upon reduction in wealth assessed after appeal effect, they would be very substantially reduced. Thus, the assessee came to be assessed primarily on the value of agricultural lands and obviously, the wealth-tax levied for each of the years was very small. It is also important to note that the difference between returned wealth and wealth assessed was due to valuation of agricultural lands. One more important factor is that the returns were filed in pursuance of notices under Section 17(1)(a) issued in March 1979 calling upon the assessee to file the said returns. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has further noted that the said notices under Section 17 calling upon the assessee to file a return were issued on the basis of assessments completed for earlier years.
(3.) AFTER giving show-cause notices the Assessing Officer levied penalties on the basis of the wealth assessed by him and those amounts are mentioned against side head No. 5 in the chart given above. The AAC rejected the assessee's contention of reasonable cause for delay in submission of returns but gave relief to the assessee on two scores. Firstly he directed that the penalty be quantified with reference to the wealth and tax determined on appeal. Secondly, he directed that in accordance with the judgments then available penalty should be quantified with reference to the tax levied for the whole period of delay.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.