9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge to deletion of penalty by the AAC under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for assessment years 1971-72, 1974-75, and 1977-78. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi-B involved three separate appeals challenging the deletion of penalties by the AAC for the assessment years 1971-72, 1974-75, and 1977-78. The Tribunal noted that despite the service of notice, no one attended on behalf of the assessee during the hearing, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The first appeal, WTA No. 267 (Delhi)/86 for the assessment year 1971-72, focused on the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 16,803 imposed by the WTO under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The appellant-revenue argued in support of the penalty order, contending that the AAC unjustifiably canceled it. Regarding the assessment year 1971-72, the Tribunal considered the delay in filing the wealth return by the assessee. The WTO imposed a penalty due to a 5-month delay in filing the return. The assessee claimed that extension petitions were filed and reasonable cause existed for the delay, citing issues with obtaining necessary information due to the Pakistan conflict. The AAC, following precedent, canceled the penalty order. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and undisputed facts, found the cancellation justified, as the appellant did not demonstrate any error or justification for interference. The Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 1974-75 and 1977-78 was similar to that of 1971-72, with identical issues and arguments presented. In these cases as well, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the AAC's decision to cancel the penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances and reasons presented by the assessee for the delays in filing the wealth returns. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's orders across all three assessment years, highlighting the importance of justifying penalties under the Wealth-tax Act based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
|
