1987 (12) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-73 was filed by the assessee under s. 15(1) of the Act which was due by 30th June, 1972. The assessee was then served upon on 2nd Feb., 1973 a notice under s. 14(2) dt. 19th Jan., 1973 requiring him to file the return of wealth which too was not complied with. The assessee was then served with the notice under s. 16(4) of the Act but that too went un responded despite reminders. The WTO, therefore, framed assessment under s. 16(5) and initiated penalty proceedings under ss. 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(b) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee before the ITO was that his accounts were in the state of mess and he was unable to assess the exact position of his income and wealth as a result of which all along he suffered ex parte assessments under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of all these circumstances, learned counsel argued, the assessee could not finalise his accounts and, therefore, much delay was caused. It is also the contention of learned counsel that the WTO made a mistake in computing the period of delay. According to him, it should have been computed from the date of expiry of the period of notice by which the assessee was called upon to furnish the return. He in support placed reliance upon Addl. CIT vs. Ram Pratap Shankarlal (1979) 117 ITR 662 (MP). It is also his contention that there was no occasion for invoking s. 18(1)(b) for levy of penalty on the allegation that s. 16(4) was not complied by the assessee. His line of reasoning is that when return has not been at all filed no notice under s. 16(....