TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns Commissioner's decision, orders penalty waiver reassessment under Wealth-tax Act</h1> <h3>Smt. Shantha Devi Versus Wealth-Tax Officer, Bagalkot, And Another</h3> Smt. Shantha Devi Versus Wealth-Tax Officer, Bagalkot, And Another - [1980] 121 ITR 703, 14 CTR 208, 3 TAXMANN 168 Issues: Challenge to order by CWT under Wealth-tax Act for penalty waiver under section 18(2A), determination of voluntary filing of returns, consideration of jewellery value in wealth computation, satisfaction of requirements under section 18(2A).Analysis:The judgment involves writ petitions challenging an order by the CWT under the Wealth-tax Act for penalty waiver under section 18(2A). The petitioner filed applications for waiver of penalty imposed under section 18(1)(a) of the Act, citing reasons for delayed filing of returns. The Commissioner dismissed the applications, stating that the returns were not voluntary and before detection by the department, thus not meeting the requirements of section 18(2A). The petitioner contended that the conclusions were baseless, emphasizing the absence of any notice under sections 14(2) or 17 and providing reasons for the delayed filing related to the inclusion of jewellery in wealth computation.The Commissioner's observation regarding the non-voluntary nature of the returns was challenged, highlighting the absence of any proceedings or notices against the assessee prior to filing. The petitioner's explanation for delayed filing, attributing it to the amendment of the Act requiring jewellery inclusion, was deemed valid. The judgment referenced previous cases to support the argument that voluntary filing without compulsion should be considered valid. The petitioner's wealth, including jewellery value, was relatively low, indicating minimal tax liability, reinforcing the voluntary nature of the filings.The Court found the Commissioner's conclusions unsupportable, quashing the orders rejecting the petitioner's applications under section 18(2A). It was determined that the filings were voluntary and bona fide, meeting the requirements under the Act. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the applications promptly, ensuring compliance with the law. The petitioner was awarded costs for the petitions, including advocate's fees.
TaxTMI 