TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1965-66 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the period of delay for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act should be computed from February 18, 1967, and, accordingly, reducing the penalty levied for the assessment year 1966-67 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the period of delay for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act should be computed from March 2, 1968, and, accordingly, reducing the penalty levied for the assessment year 1967-68 ? " A look at the three questions will indicate that all the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the WTO that he filed a disclosure petition under the Scheme of the Finance Act, 1965, in May, 1966, and the disclosure settlement was finalised in August, 1966, and that the above circumstance contributed to the delay in the submission of the wealth-tax returns. This plea was, however, rejected by the WTO on the ground that the settlement was arrived at in August, 1966, and the pendency of the said disclosure petition could, if at all, constitute reasonable cause only for the assessment year 1965-66 and since the assessee has failed to show any reasonable cause for the delayed submission of the wealth-tax returns for the other years, penalties have been levied for all the assessment years. The levy of penalty was also confirmed by the AAC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s called for on the facts and in the circumstances of this case with the view expressed by the Tribunal. Section 18 enables the various authorities in the proceedings before them to levy penalty for failure to furnish the returns. Section 18(1)(a) provides for the levy of penalty if there has been a delay in the filing of the return under s. 14 of the Act. But that section contemplates the levy of penalty for the delay in, filing the return without reasonable cause. That means, wherever the assessee is able to establish that the delay was due to reasonable cause, the penalty is not contemplated under that section. In this case, the Tribunal felt that the assessee could file the wealth-tax returns only after the finalisation of his income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." In that case, the court further pointed out that the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is not a mere concomitant of delay in filing the return and, therefore, even if there is any delay in filing the return, the assessee is not li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
