TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as " the Tribunal "). Before the Tribunal two points were raised on behalf of the assessee. Firstly, it was submitted that the assessee was an agriculturist by vocation and as such he was not conscious of his legal obligation to furnish annual returns of his net wealth. Secondly, it was submitted that the assessment having been started and completed on the basis of a return furnished under s. 14(2) of the Act, penalty under s. 18(1)(i) of the Act could not be imposed for any assumed delay in the furnishing of a return under s. 14(1) of the Act. On the first point, the Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged as a partner in a firm functioning at Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has framed the following question of law for our opinion : " Whether, on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding (i) that the return furnished by the assessee was not one by way of discharge of his obligation under section 14(1), read with section 15, Wealth-tax Act, but it was one by way of compliance with the notice under section 14(2), Wealth-tax Act? (ii) that the said return not being a delayed return under section 14(1), no penalty for furnishing delayed return under section 14(1), Wealth-tax Act, was exigible ? and (iii) that penalty for total failure to furnish return under section 14(1), Wealth-tax Act, is not exigible in a case where a notice under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax return could not be deemed to have been condoned if a notice under s. 139(2) of the 1961 Act was subsequently issued to the assessee. The words " as the case may be " also appear in s. 18(1) of the Act, extracted above. Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Act are in pari materia with ss. 139(1) and 139(2) of the 1961 Act. On a parity of reasoning, we hold that an assessee who does not file a return under s. 14(1) of the Act or files the same after delay cannot escape liability merely because the WTO has issued a notice to him under s. 14(2) of the Act. The view taken by us also finds support from CIT v. Indra Co. [1971] 79 ITR 702 (Raj), Mullapudi Venkatarayudu v. Union of India [1975] 99 ITR 448 (AP), CIT v. D. V. Save [1979] 117 ITR 266 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
