TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a penalty under s. 18(1)(c), by Revenue for asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1988-89, respectively and are directed against the common order of Dy. CIT(A), Jodhpur, dt. 13th Dec., 1993. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written submission of the learned authorised representative of assessee furnished on record before us. 5. First we take up ITA Nos. 195, 197, 199, 201, 203 and 205/Jp/1994, pertaining to penalty under s. 18(1)(a) for late filing of the WT returns. The due date for filing of WT return for each of the above-mentioned six asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1988-89 was 31st July, of the 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, respectively and WT return for asst. yr. 1983-84 was filed on 18th ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as contended that the income-tax assessment order for asst. yr. 1979-80 was passed on 22nd March, 1990. He has referred to para 5 of the said assessment order and contended that it was here that the HUF. status was accepted by the Department in the income-tax assessment order. He has contended that Sh. Umesh Singh Mehta, the father of Sh. L.N. Mehta was Karta of the family, up till his death in January, 1985, and the affairs of the HUF were being managed by Sh. Umesh Singh Mehta. It has been contended that Sh. Umesh Singh Metha did not file the returns of income and of wealth, and Sh. L.N. Mehta came into picture only after death of Sh. Umesh Singh Mehta. It has been contended that Sh. L.N. Mehta, HUF the assessee was under bona fide belief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... till IT returns were finalized and furnished. In the written submission of assessee reliance has been placed on CWT vs. Babulal (1978) 114 ITR 370 (Mad) and CWT vs. Venugopal (1984) 149 ITR 394 (Mad). 7. It has been contended that Sh. L.N. Mehta is an advocate of criminal side and has never been dealing with taxation matters. It has also been contended that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee by Asstt. CWT, as required under s. 18(2) of the WT Act. 8. In rejoinder the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that the status of assessee should be known to the assessee so the date of assessment for asst. yr. 1979-80 is of no relevance. 9. We have considered the rival contentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under s. 17 were issued, in compliance whereof the assessee filed the WT returns. As such considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking a circumspect view of the fact-situation in its entirety including the learned authorised representative elaborate contentions on assessee's plea of bona fide belief, and therefore, filing the WT returns agreeably to avoid litigation and to buy peace as also the plea regarding consequential delay, we find the impugned order of learned CIT(A) on this count to be quite justified and in noway laconic. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 11. In the result the Revenue's appeals being ITA No. 195, 197, 199, 201, 203 and 205/Jp/1994 are dismissed. 12. Now we take up ITA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same as raised in respect of penalties levied by AO under 18(1)(a). It has also been contended that the Asstt. CWT has not specified anywhere, in his order the exact reason for imposing penalty. It has been contended that there is hardly any difference between the assessed income and the returned income, in various assessment years under appeal. It has been contended that Expln. 4 to s. 18(1) provides that where the value of any asset returned by any person is less than 70 per cent of the assessed value of such asset, such person shall be deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars. It has been contended that in the instant case there is no such difference. It has been contended that Asstt. CWT has though not mentioned as to which pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also not been afforded to the assessee. 15. In rejoinder the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that ruling cited by the learned authorised representative of assessee is distinguishable on facts and he has cited CIT vs. K.P. Madhusudanan (2001) 165 CTR (Ker) 353 : (2000) 246 ITR 218 (Ker). 16. We have considered the rival contentions, relevant material on record, as also the cited decision. In (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 182 : (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) the assessee had initially filed returns with meagre income, but after search and receipt of notice for reopening assessment, the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income to purchase peace and avoid litigation. In the situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court held ....