2019 (12) TMI 1135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. This Appeal was Admitted on 25.07.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:   (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ACWT dated 30/06/2008, is barred by limitation being made beyond period of one year as required u/s 17A(2) of the WT Act, and consequently the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) are unsustainable/bad in law ? (ii) Whether the learned ITAT upon coming to the conclusion that there was no malafide intention on the part of the Assessee to delay the filing of the returns and it was due to oversight without any element of deliberateness, the ITAT was further right in law/justified in holding that Expl. (3) to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been raised by the appellant in its reply, the respondent was duty bound to consider this issue, particularly, since, it is an issue of law and further, an issue, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction. For these reasons, Mr. Rivankar, submits that the aforesaid substantial questions of law are liable to be answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. 6. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by Mr. Rivankar and also perused record. We find that in this case, both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have held that explanation 3 to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act is attracted. This is on the basis that for the assessment year 2003-04, the re-assessment notice was issued to the appellant prio....