TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (5) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se to such notices the assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1973-74 on 6th March, 1974 and that for the assessment year 1974-75 on 26th March, 1975. The WTO initiated proceedings under section 18(1)(a) and by the orders dated 19th March, 1979 levied penalty of Rs. 10,248 in each assessment year. The assessee in response to the show cause notice did not offer any explanation for the default. The WTO in levying the penalty held that the default was deliberate and wilful. 2. The assessee in the appeals before the AAC contended that the returns had been filed in response to the notice under section 14(2) within the time allowed. There was, therefore, no default to attract penalty proceedings. It was further contended that in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel relied on the decision reported in CIT v. Ali Mohamed & Co. [1974] 97 ITR 133 (Ori.). Reference was made to a decision of the Kerala High Court reported in (1963) 2 KLR 83 arising under the ST Act. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, in the absence of a direct decision of the Kerala High Court on the question of penalty under section 18(1)(a) the decision of the Patna High Court is binding and has to be followed. It is said that the ruling on any Central Statute by any High Court in India is binding upon all the States of India unless there is a Contrary ruling by the High Court of the State or on overruling by the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, maintained that section 18(1)(a)is not attracted in this case for both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 6. The first question that falls for consideration in this case is whether there had been failure on the part of the assessee to file the returns without reasonable cause. On the contention of the assessee a question arises whether the failure to file the return voluntarily under section 14(1) in a case where a notice under section 14(2) is issued would attract section 18(1)(a). Section 18(1) (a) of theWealth-taxAct corresponds to section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act which pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact that the returns had been filed subsequently in response to the notices under sub-section (2). On similar facts, in a case arising under the Income-tax Act, the Madras High Court has in R. Lakshminarayana Reddiar v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 767 (Mad.) held that penalty for default committed under section 139 (1) can be imposed even though the assessee had subsequently filed a return in response to a notice under section 139 (2) except where the notice under section 139(2) is issued before the expiry of the time provided under section 139 (1) for filing the return. Similar view is taken by the Delhi High Court in Nathumal Girdharilal v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 202 (Delhi). In that case it was held that the fact that a notice was issued under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 14 (1) on filing the returns in response to notices issued under section 14 (2) within the time allowed thereunder. 7. The assessee has not attempted to explain the default in not filing the returns voluntarily either before the lower authorities or even before us. On the facts, it is reasonable to infer that the department has discharged its initial onus to show that the assessee had no reasonable cause for filing the returns late. The conduct of the assessee indicated that he was conscious of his obligation and the omission to file the return on the due date was in conscious disregard of the legal obligation. We are, therefore, in agreement with the lower authorities in holding that penalty is exigible on the facts and circumstances o....