1981 (6) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of assessment for asst. yrs. 1974-75. She then found that she was liable not only for that years but also for earlier years. She therefore, voluntarily filed wealth tax returns after obtaining a certificate from an approved valued in respect of immovable properties and having her jewellery also similarly valued. Her liability for the years were as under. Asst. yr. Wealth Tax. Dealy infurnishing the return (months) Penalty levied. . Rs. Rs. . Rs. 1964-65 1,33,518 167 124 11,313 1965-66 1,33,352 166 112 11,256 1966-67 1,35,454 176 100 11,965 1967-68 1,48,513 241 88 16,353 1968-69 1,48,627 248 76 16,335 1669-70 1,15,961 254 64 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dge of her statutory liability, which was at any rate, only marginal. Considering that the properties were four in number and small, her difficulty in ascertaining her liability was considered to be genuine and the penalties were cancelled. The departmental appeal question the finding that tax should be basis for up to asst. yr. 1968-69 in respect of penalties u/s 18(1) (a) of the WT Act. Even on merits it is contended that the approved value had given the report on 22nd August, 1973 while the returns were filed only on 12th November, 1974 and that the penalties in aspect of the delay between these two dates should have atleast been sustained. A stand is also taken that the assessee's husband is an income tax assessee who is conversant with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the conditions are prima facie satisfied and that the penalties would have ordinarily been waived if only the petition had been taken up for hearing. We have to deal with the case on merits. Even so we do not find any material to differ from the first appellate authority who has taken a reasonable view, where the liability is marginal, it is not easy to infer deliberate disregard of statutory obligations or any concious attempt to avoid liability. Since the report of the approved valuer did not automatically give rise to liability and it was possible to have different methods of valuation of properties it is not a case where we could say that the assessee should have filed the returns immediately on receipt of approved values report. It ....