1982 (7) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld him liable under section 18(1)(a) and levied a penalty of Rs. 740. The assessee sought to assail this order before AAC in appeal preferred by him on several grounds. According to him, it was the first year when he was called upon to file the wealth tax return. He had voluntarily filed the wealth-tax return without there having been any enquiry or notice about the same by the department. He explained that CBDT, vide Circule No. 78 (F. No. 32/11/WT) dated 17th February, 1972 had extended the time for filing the return for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 up to February 1972 in case of the assessees, who had agricultural lands. Since he had agricultural holdings, measuring 43 bighas, he claimed that the extended limit applied in his....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had to see was whether there was a reasonable cause, which has prevented him from filing the return in time. If there was a reasonable cause, he had not to go into the ethics and metaphysics of the case and disregard it on the ground that there was a equally valid statutory duty to be performed. As far as the second plea of the assessee is concerned that the CBDT had extended time-limit for those who are having agricultural holding upto February 1972, the AAC misdirected himself in not availing the benefit to the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not have taxable agricultural holding. The assessee had 43 bighas of land and he had to find out the value of this holding after referring to a competent valuer. The AAC was not justifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e had applied for extension of time upto 30th February, 1971. All his pleas were turned down AAC and he confirmed the penalty levied on him. Therefore, the assessee is an appeal before us. 8. The assessee reiterates the pleas he had raised before the AAC. We have considered the facts of the case and, in our view, the penalty levied by the WTO cannot be sustained. The WTO has proceeded on the basis that the return was filed on 19th January, 1974 and there was a delay of 26 months. Our attention was drawn to the wealth-tax order for the year in which satisfaction of the WTO, as required under section 18(1)(a) was recorded. The first line reads "Originally the return was filed declaring wealth of Rs. 96,861 on 31st December, 1971. Subsequen....