TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice and all account books, etc., were seized which were handed over to the Sales Tax Department and later on requisitioned by the Income-tax Department. The applicant was also put under detention and was released in the year 1977. Thereafter, a second search was conducted by the Income-tax Department on August 10, 1983, when some more books etc., were seized by the Income-tax Department which adversely affected the business and this fact had been taken into account by the Income-tax Officer while framing the income-tax assessment for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79. Due to these abnormal circumstances, the income-tax returns were also filed delayed and could be filed on January 6, 1983. The assessee filed wealth-tax return for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83 on November 9, 1984. On the basis of the return the assessments were completed by consolidated order on October 24, 1985. The Wealth-tax Officer had also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Act for late filing of return and subsequently, levied the penalty. The assessee filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from filing the wealth-tax returns in any of the eight years under consideration was not established by the assessee. On a perusal of all the case law and on an appraisal of the facts surrounding this case, we find force in the contention raised by the learned Departmental Representative before us. We set aside the orders of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the Wealth-tax Officer, with the following variations: 'Up to March 31,1976, penalty should be imposed with reference to the quantum of wealth at 4 per cent, of the wealth and for the period after April 1, 1976, penalty should be imposed with reference to the assessed tax at 2 per cent, per month'." Heard Sri Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the assessee, and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the question referred is in two parts. One relating to the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ambika Cements Products [1987] SOT 1 and the second part of the question is whether, on the facts and circumstances, penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Act is exigible. He submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the assessee. A common question stated above has been referred for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83. In case the question referred relates to the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ambika Cement only the said question would not have been referred by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1975-76 because the issue relating to the overlapping of the period and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ambika Cement was only relevant for the assessment year 1976-77 onwards and not for the assessment year 1975-76. A perusal of the question referred shows that it is in two parts; (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the ratio of the decision in the case of Ambika Cement was not applicable; and (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Act was exigible. So far as the first part is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee has very fairly submitted that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply to the penalty und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc., were seized. Thus, from 1975 onwards the accounts book were in the possession of the Income-tax Department and this has adversely affected the business and due to these abnormal circumstances, the income-tax returns were also delayed and could be filed on January 6, 1983. Unless the profit and loss account and balance-sheet are prepared and the income-tax return are finalised, the proper wealth cannot be worked out. Thus we are of the opinion that the view of the first appellate authority that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return of wealth till the date of filing of the return of income-tax, i.e., January 6, 1983, is justified. In the case of Addl. CWT v. Babulal K. Shah [1978] 114 ITR 370, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held the delay in furnishing of return of income as reasonable cause for furnishing the return for the wealth-tax. In the case of CWT v. S.L. Khunnah [1989] 180 ITR 340 (All), the case of the assessee was that on account of death of the seniormost partner of the firm, serious disputes arose among the members of the family of the deceased partner which were referred to arbitration and the assessee was able to p....