TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction ? " The facts not in controversy are that the assessee was liable to file a return of net wealth in terms of section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). It is not in controversy further that the return was not filed on or before June 30, 1969. The return having been filed late, the Wealth-tax Officer in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Act assessed the period of default as two months and imposed penalty for that period of Rs. 4,644 at the rate of 1 per cent. per month. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the imposition of penalty was improper and illegal for the reason that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for not filing the return by the due date, i.e., June 30, 1969. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellate Assistant Commissioner stated in unmistakable terms that he found no reasonable cause for the default in not filing the return by June 30, 1969. To quote the words of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he held as follows: "I am not able to follow the logic behind this argument of the appellant's counsel. I find that in this case the return was not filed even immediately after August 2, 1969. It was filed on September 29, 1969, i.e., about two months after the above date. I further find that the appellant did not apply for time before the Wealth-tax Officer if he had any difficulty in preparing statistics for filing the wealth-tax return. see no reason therefore to hold this as reasonable cause for default. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, be held on the first question that the Tribunal was absolutely right in holding that penalty was leviable under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The submission of learned counsel for the assessee on the second question referred to us also lacks substance. The entire submission is based upon the assumption that the assessee was precluded by reasonable cause from filing the return till August 2, 1969. On that finding, it was submitted that only one month's penalty could have been levied. The concluded finding being that there was no reasonable cause for not filing the return by June 30, 1969, it must follow that the petitioner had defaulted for two months in filing the return. In our view, therefore, there is no substance in the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
