TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment. According to the petitioner, his chartered accountant filed his wealth-tax return on 31st May, 1971, showing the net taxable wealth at Rs. 2,91,224 and on that day admittedly wealth-tax in the amount of Rs. 956 was paid to the department on self-assessment basis. The filing of the wealth-tax return on 31st May, 1971, is not admitted by the department. On 24th February, 1973, the WTO issued a notice under s. 17 of the W.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act ") calling upon the petitioner to file his return for the assessment year 1970-71. According to the petitioner, his chartered accountant informed the officer that the return had already been filed but that in case the same was not traceable in the records of the department, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing his net wealth at Rs. 64,408. On 29th March, 1973, the assessment order was passed assessing the petitioner's net wealth at Rs. 1,29,854 by adding an amount of Rs. 65,446 being the income-tax liabilities claimed for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. Tax on the net assessed wealth was levied at Rs. 299. On 8th August, 1973, the department issued a penalty notice under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. On the date of hearing, namely, 19th September, 1973, the petitioner was absent and an ex parte order was passed by the WTO levying a penalty of Rs. 2,537 for late filing of the return on 26th March, 1973. The petitioner's revision application under s. 25(1) was rejected by the Commissioner, who by his order dated 29th January, 1977, upheld t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of net wealth has been filed on that date. It is rather strange that in this case, even the receipt for filing of the return has been misplaced ........" Beyond the bald assertion that the affidavit filed by the petitioner's chartered accountant was not acceptable to the Commissioner, no reason has been given by the Commissioner why he chose to disregard the affidavit made by the petitioner's chartered accountant. It is not as if even the department harboured a grievance that the chartered accountant and the petitioner were in collusion with each other or that the chartered accountant had gone out of his way to make a false affidavit. If so, the Commissioner should have so stated in his order with his reasons for disbelieving the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say that the entire approach of the Commissioner was totally erroneous which goes to the root of the matter and merits interference. At best the period for which the penalty could be levied would be from 1st January, 1971, to 30th April, 1971. It was urged by Mr. Kotwal on behalf of the department that penalty should be levied from 1st October, 1970, because the petitioner's application dated 30th September, 1970, for extension of time till 30th December, 1970, had not been replied to by the department and hence must be deemed to be rejected. I do not agree. In a tax proceeding and more so where penalty is attracted, it is not only right and proper but pre-eminently essential and imperative that the department should intimate to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. Coming to the next assessment year, namely 1971-72, it is the case of the petitioner that he was advised by his chartered accountant that it was not necessary to file his wealth-tax return as the petitioner's net wealth for that year was only Rs. 64,408, namely, below the taxable limit, and that he bona fide followed the advice given with equal bona fides to him by his chartered accountant and hence did not file the return for the assessment year 1971-72, till 26th March, 1973, after service of the notice dated 24th February, 1973, under s. 17 of the Act. It is true that, as appears from the assessment order, the WTO was of the opinion that income-tax liabilities for the assessment years 1967-68 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o law and goes to the root of the matter, necessitating interference. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). In respect of the assessment year 1970-71, after calculating the penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act for four months, namely, from 1st January, 1971, to 30th April, 1971, and deducting the same from the amount of Rs. 21,091 paid by the petitioner to the department, the department shall refund the balance to the petitioner within six weeks from today. In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the department shall refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 2,537 in toto within two weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Wealth t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
