1977 (4) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 1,14,521 Rs. 1,34,132 1970-71 Rs. 34,955 Rs. 1,13,611 Rs. 1,48,566 . . Less liabilities : Rs. 18,000 . . Net wealth declared Rs. 1,30,566 The Wealth- tax Officer completed the assessments on the basis of the returns and during the course of proceedings he issued the penalty notices under s. 18(1)(a). By his order dated 22nd July, 1972 he imposed the impugned penalties of Rs. 9,210 and Rs. 4,790 for the first and second years respectively. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee had sent his written reply dated17th July, 1972which was brushed aside by the Wealth- tax Officer as being too general in terms. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....priciation reserve in the books of M/s. Bloomfeld Trading Co.,Ghaziabad. . 25,981 (b) Debts due from D.Chanda and Sons H.U.F. wrongly shown. 20,060 46,041 . . 84,525 Add: Proportionate value of share of the assessee in Development rebate reserve in the books of M/s. Bloomfeld Trading CompanyGhaziabad. . 4,807 Net wealth declared . 89,332 3. The contention of the assessee before the Appellate Assistant commissioner was that the actual wealth of the assessee being far below the taxable limit, the penalty should not have been imposed because there was a mistake on the part of the assessee's counsel in declaring the wealth at a higher figure when the total wealth was much less than the returned figur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... act, requiring the appellant to do so. No reasonable cause has thus been proved before me which could be held to have prevented the appellant from filing the returns of his wealth within the prescribed time and its filing the same belated by 33 months and 21 months respectively. It must therefore be held that the appellant was not prevented by any reasonable cause in submitting the returns of his wealth within the prescribed time. The penalty orders of the W.T.O. u/s. 18(1)(a) relating to the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 are therefore, upheld and the appeals stand rejected." 4. The contentions before the Appellate Assistant commissioner were reiterated before us with reference to figures and the mistake on the part of the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ealth of the assessee was far below the taxable limit. In such a situation it was the mistake on the part of the assessee's counsel's office, can the assessee be punished by way of penalty under s. 18(1)(a). While deciding this issue, we have to keep in view the fact that the assessee did not challenge the assessment as made. The acceptance of the assessment as framed on the basis of the return might be a case of acquiescence or warranted by expediency. But can such acquiescence be equated with the failure to file the return without a reasonable cause within the meaning of s. 18(1)(a). The bonafide belief of the assessee that his total wealth was far below the returned wealth was a bonafide belief. The office of the counsel of the assess co....