Per Shri P.I.Mohan Singh, Judicial Member - These appeals of the assessee relate to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 and arise out of the order of the AAC, R-Range, Nagpur dated 21-8-1982. The aforesaid appeals involve a common issue and are, therefore, heard together and disposed of by a common consolidated order for the sake of convenience. - (1.)
(2.) The aforesaid appeals are directed against the order of the IAC who confirmed the penalties of Rs. 24,700 and Rs. 1,184 levied by the WTO for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively, under section 18(1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act). The brief facts of the case as are under : The assessee filed the returns of wealth for the aforesaid assessment years on 9-12-1977 declaring net wealth of Rs. 2,76,920 and Rs. 2,76,680, respectively. The returns were due to be filed on 31-7-1975 and 31-3-1976. As the assessee failed to file the returns within the statutory period without any reasonable cause. penalty proceedings under section 18(1) (a) were initiated by the WTO. In response to a show-cause notice, none attended nor any reply was filed. The WTO. therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the returns in time and levied penalties of Rs. 24,780 and Rs. 1,184 for the assessment years in question. On appeal before the AAC, it was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the penalties have been levied on the legal heir of Shri Raghunath Sarda and that penalty on legal heir was not valid in law. He further contended before the AAC that there are valid reasons for the default as the deceased was detained under the MISA. Rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, the AAC confirmed the penalties levied by the WTO, taking support from section 19(1) as according to him, the aforesaid section makes a legal heir of the deceased person liable for not only for wealth-tax purposes but also makes him liable for any sum which would have been payable by him under this Act if he had not dies. He further observed in his order that since the assessee did not care to furnish any explanation before the WTO he is debarred from furnishing any explanation now given before him cannot be accepted, as according to him, it amounts to fresh evidence. In a nutshell, the AAC has not considered the case of the assessee on merits. As against this order of the AAC, the assessee is in appeal before us.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, narrated the brief facts of this case which are very material for disposing of these appeals. THE returns for both the assessment years were filed by the assessee on 9-12-1977 and as the assessments were completed by the WTO on 29-1-1980. THE assessee died on 16-2-1981 and the penalty orders were passed on 23-7-1982 after the death of the assessee. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. CWT [1980] 124 ITR 77, the learned counsel for the assessee contended before us that the penalties levied on the legal heir was not valid in law. He further contended that the deceased was detained under MISA from 30-6-1975 to 27-9-1976 and further he was externed from limits of the Nagpur Corporation for 6 months from 28-9-1976 till 28-3-1977 and, therefore, he could not file the returns in time. He further filed before us, a copy of the order of the AAC, B-Range, Nagpur dated 19-3-1980 wherein a similar plea was taken on the penalty levied by the ITO, under section 271(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the AAC after considering the aforesaid facts condoned the delay in filing the returns up to 27-9-1976. He, therefore, contended that even on merits, the delay in filing the returns by the assessee should be condoned and the penalties levied by the WTO and confirmed by the AAC be cancelled.;