9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lth were due from the assessee for these three years on 30th June, 1966, 30th June, 1967 and 30th June, 1968. No such returns were filed on the above due dates. However, the assessee filed its returns of net wealth for a assessment year 1966-67 on18-8-1971showing a net wealth of Rs. 1,96,938 for the assessment year 1967-68 on15-7-1971showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,10.314 and for the assessment year 1968-69 on30-6-1971showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,17,818. Thus, these returns we delayed by 61 months, 48 months and 35 months respectively. The assessment for these three years were completed on a total wealth of Rs. 2,20,400, Rs. 2,48,910 and Rs. 2,56,420 respectively 3. On being called upon, to explain why penalties under S. 18(1)(a) of the WT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the assessee himself had filed returns showing total wealth of more than 2 lakhs and he could not have been under bonafide belief that his total wealth for these years was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. Even for the assessment year 1966-67, he was of the view that the wealth declared by the assessee of less than Rs. 2 on account of lesser value of immovable property taken by the assessee. He further observed that the assessee had not placed before him any material to support any of his contentions, including the one that the return forms were not available in the Income Tax Office. Accordingly, he proceeded to impose penalties on the assessee for all the three years. In computing the penalties, he levied penalties upto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the WTO and dismissed the assessee's appeals. Aggrieved by these orders the assessee is before the Tribunal in second appeals. 6. Before us, also, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that its total wealth for all these years was much below Rs. 2 lakhs. He also repeated his argument that the net wealth exceeded Rs. 2 lakhs only on account of the excessive valuation of immovable properties, taken by the WTO, at 20 times the net annual letting value. On facts, we find the above submission of the learned counsel of the assessee to be incorrect at least as far as the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 are concerned. For these years, even on the basis of the assessee's own valuation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69, the penalty for the default committed beyond 1st April, 1969 should be levied at the rates prescribed by the amended provision of s. 18 (1)(a). Their Lordships have taken the view that the default is committed when the assessee fails to file his return on the date prescribed. By the subsequent filing of a return, the default already committed does not cease. By the act of filing of a return after commission of such default, "the assessee only absolves himself from computation of penalty for the future." Their Lordships have gone on to observe that the penalty liveable for the default should be calculated in accordance with the provisions of law as they stood at the time of commission of the default, namely, the date on which the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
