TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 of the IT Act. However, for the reasons best known to it, the Petitioner did not file a wealth tax return. The Respondent is right in contending that there was no valid reason given by the Petitioner in not filing the wealth tax return within the stipulated time when it had filed its income tax return on 28th June 1991 and a revised return on 18th January 1992. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Manchanda, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue, the conduct of the Petitioner in filing the wealth tax return belatedly and much after the date by which it was required to disinvest the shares held in the prohibited modes, and the fact that it did not do so, should disentitle it to any of the reliefs prayed for. On the date of filing of the wealth tax return, the Petitioner was fully aware that it did not comply with the essential conditions for claiming exemption. Therefore, it could not be heard to say that it must be refunded the wealth tax voluntarily paid by it. - W. P. (C) 2303/2001 & CM 3997/2001 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate with Ms Bindu Saxena, Ms Aparajita Swarup, Mr K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequently extended to 31st March 1993. 5. The Petitioner filed its return of income on 28th June 1991 under the IT Act, i.e., on the date prior to the aforementioned amendment brought in by the Finance (No. 2) Act 1991 by which Clause 2 (iia) was introduced to proviso to Section 13 (1) (d) of the IT Act. Therefore, the Petitioner did not claim the exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act in the return filed by it for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 1991-92. 6. It is stated that the Petitioner was also required to file its return of net wealth for AY 1991-92 by 30th June 1991. However, by notification dated 19th June 1991, the time limit prescribed for filing such return under Section 139 of the IT Act was extended upto 31st October 1991. Accordingly, the due date for filing the wealth tax return under Section 14 (1) of the WT Act for AY 1991-92 stood extended upto 31st October 1991. 7. The Petitioner states that in view of the amendment in Section 13 (1) (d) of the IT Act, it filed a revised return of income on 18th January 1992 claiming exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act. The Petitioner further states that it was under the bonafide belief that it was entitled to exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ). By an order dated 19th November 1997 in the appeal by Wular Trust, which is common to the appeals of other similarly situated sister trusts of the Petitioner, i.e., the other Petitioners herein, the ITAT allowed the appeals holding that since the Petitioner had time up to 31st March 1993 to disinvest the shares held by it, the benefit under Section 11 (1) (d) of the IT Act could not be denied to it for AY 1991-92. 13. It is stated that on 10th November 1998 the CBDT addressed a letter to Respondent No. 1 to appraise it of the status of the issue concerning the Petitioner s claim for exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act. A copy of this letter was marked to the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that it was thereafter surprised to receive a communication dated 28th April 2000 (which is also challenged in this writ petition) whereby the CBDT rejected the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 10 (2) (b) of the WT Act. 14. The case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 1, Additional Director of Wealth Tax (Exemption), ought to have regularized the wealth tax proceedings and passed an assessment order. Alternately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) and M/s. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II (2015) 324 ELT 641 (SC). 17. Countering the above submissions, Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue at the outset protested against the misleading statements made in the petition regarding the Petitioner's failure to disinvest the shares held by it before 31st March 1993. In particular Mr. Manchanda drew the attention of the Court to para 5 (N) of the counter affidavit dated 16th October 2001 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2305 of 2001 where it was categorically averred that the Assessee had not disinvested the assets which were in the prohibited modes by 31st March 1993. Mr. Manchanda referred to the rejoinder of the Petitioner wherein there was no denial of the aforementioned averment. 18. The thrust of Mr. Manchanda s submission was that the payment of ₹ 5,44,412 as self-assessment tax and the time of filing of the wealth tax return on 26th November 1993 was a voluntary act. Therefore, the filing of the wealth tax return under protest was to no avail. The fact remained that on the date of filing of the return, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to retain the shares which were in the prohibited modes. 22. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Manchanda, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue, the conduct of the Petitioner in filing the wealth tax return belatedly and much after the date by which it was required to disinvest the shares held in the prohibited modes, and the fact that it did not do so, should disentitle it to any of the reliefs prayed for. On the date of filing of the wealth tax return, the Petitioner was fully aware that it did not comply with the essential conditions for claiming exemption. Therefore, it could not be heard to say that it must be refunded the wealth tax voluntarily paid by it. 23. In this context, the averment in para 5 (N) of the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2305 of 2001 requires to be set out in toto: 5 (N) On receiving this application CBDT called for the report from the concerned officer which was submitted in the case of Dal Trust vide letter dated 23rd October 1998. The Board also required the concerned officer to apprise it with respect to finality of the issues concerned by way of appeal or otherwise. It is also to be pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
