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>Tribunal cancels penalty for late tax return, citing lack of care and valid reasons</h1> <h3>SMT. TARABEN NAVINCHANDRA SHAH. Versus THIRD WEALTH TAX OFFICER.</h3> SMT. TARABEN NAVINCHANDRA SHAH. Versus THIRD WEALTH TAX OFFICER. - TTJ 006, 1289, Issues:Imposition of penalty by the WTO for belated filing of return of net wealth for the assessment year 1974-75.Analysis:The appeal in question pertains to the penalty imposed by the WTO for the assessment year 1974-75 due to the belated filing of the return of net wealth. The assessee filed the return on 12th August 1974, missing the deadline of 30th June 1974. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(A) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 233. The matter was appealed before the A.A.C., where it was argued that the show cause notice was vague and did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Despite the deficiencies in the penalty notice, the A.A.C. confirmed the penalty order, stating that the notice was related to the belated filing of the return and the assessee should have sought clarification from their representative. The counsel for the assessee contended that the penalty order and show cause notice displayed a lack of application of mind by the WTO, with inapplicable sentences not being canceled out. The counsel also argued that due to circumstances such as the All India Railway strike, the return could not be filed on time, and penalty proceedings against the firm and individual partners had been dropped under a different section. The WTO's actions were criticized for not verifying the explanation provided by the assessee and not canceling the penalty order despite valid reasons presented. The Tribunal found the penalty imposition to be casual and lacking necessary care, with the penalty order not properly detailing the offense committed by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty order should be canceled, as the explanation provided by the assessee was not adequately considered, and there were valid reasons for the delay in filing the return. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was canceled.
TaxTMI 