TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds: (i) The order of learned Dy. CWT(A) confirming validity and the levy of penalty under s. 18(1)(a) vide order dt. 28th March, 1989 for the past default found in assessment order dt. 3rd Oct., 1984 on wealth assessed therein on the basis of reinitiation of penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) on 24th March, 1987 is erroneous and bad in law as the levy of penalty has already become barred by time limitation. (ii) The direction of learned Dy. CWT(A) to recalculate levy of penalty under s. 18(1)(a) on past default upto 19th Oct., 1983 found in order dt. 3rd Oct., 1984 on wealth assessed therein now is invalid in law. (iii) The learned Dy. CWT(A) has erred in directing to levy penalty under s. 18(1)(a) without approving the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o have been finalised by 31st March, 1987. Mere reinitiation of penalty proceedings in supplementary assessment order dt. 24th March, 1987 will not give fresh limitation to the penalty proceedings for the original default. It was also submitted that as soon as the assessees came to know of their liabilities to wealth-tax they filed returns voluntarily on 19th Oct., 1983 and as such they were prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the returns in time. The Assessing Officer rejected the contentions of the assessees. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessees had revised the returns of wealth on 30th Sept., 1986, i.e., before the date of expiry of limitation for disposal of penalties. The notices under s. 17 were issued and served....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted the Assessing Officer to recompute the penalties without taking into consideration the additional wealth declared by the assessees under the amnesty scheme. Being dissatisfied, the assessees have come up in second appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessees invited our attention to the reassessment order dt. 24th March, 1987 and submitted that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) for original default upto the date of filing the original returns and thus there was no initiation of penalty in respect of the additional wealth declared in the revised returns. According to him, for original default the penalty was initiated in the assessment orders dt. 3rd Oct., 1984 and thus the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered the rival submissions. In our opinion, the assessees will not succeed. It is not in dispute that the returns for all the assessment years filed on 19th Oct., 1983 were late. The only reason for late submission of the returns given before the Assessing Officer was that the returns were filed voluntarily when the assessees came to know of their wealth-tax liabilities. This explanation has been rejected by the Assessing Officer as in his opinion this did not constitute a reasonable cause. No other reason was advanced either before the first appellate authority or before us. We agree with the stand of the Assessing Officer and hold that there was no reasonable cause for non-submission of the returns in time. 10. It is an admitted po....