Belated wealth-tax return treated as revised return sustains penalty where culpable conduct is inferred from facts.

A belated wealth-tax return shown as a revised return supported an inference of culpable conduct where the Tribunal found as a fact that no earlier return had been filed. The Court treated the inference of intention from conduct as a factual finding, not a question of law, and on that basis upheld penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee's explanation that a return could be filed any time before assessment was rejected on the recorded facts, and the penalty was held reasonable and correct in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1972-73 was correct in law.

Analysis: The return for the assessment year 1972-73 was filed long after the due date, and the assessee's explanation was that he believed the return could be filed any time before assessment. The Tribunal recorded a clear finding that no return had been filed earlier and that the belated return had been described as a revised return. The Court held that intention could be inferred from conduct, and such a reasonable inference amounted to a finding of fact from which no question of law arose. On that factual finding, the imposition of penalty was not unreasonable.

Conclusion: The answer to the referred question is in the affirmative. The imposition of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1972-73 was held to be correct in law, against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal records a clear factual finding that a belated return was falsely shown as a revised return, the inference of culpability from such conduct supports penalty and does not give rise to a question of law.

---