TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (2) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delay. He, therefore initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act and called upon the assessee to explain the delay in filling the returns for the years under consideration. The assessee explained that she was an illiterate lady and was not aware of her obligation to file the returns of her wealth particularly when she had reasons to believe that her net wealth for the years under consideration was below taxable limits. She further contended that in entertaining her belief to the above effect she had not acted dishonestly or in defiance of law and that her conduct was not at all contumacious or dishonest. The WTO did not feel satisfied fo the explanation offered by her and levied the penalty for various years in the following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partmental representative vehemently contended that ignorance of law is no excuse and on that ground the assessee could not have entertained a Bona fide belief that who was not required to file the returns of her wealth for the years under consideration. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the assessee had filed the returns of her net wealth at negative figure of Rs. 7,600 on one and me same day, i.e., 12 Sept., 1977 for all the three years, whereas her wealth was assessed at much higher positive figures for various years. In anticipation of a possible argument likely to be advanced on behalf of the assessee in respect to the rectification orders passed by the WTO under s. 35 of the Act giving effect to the appellate orders of the AAC, the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on at the rate of Rs. 9 per sq. yd. was granted to the assessee. The assessee received compensation at the rate of Rs. 14 from the Court in appeal, but she was still hesitating her right to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 22 per sq. yd. In her returns of wealth she had assessed this property taking the rate of Rs. 14 per sq. yd. It was further pointed out by Mr. Panjwani that the value of movable property taken at Rs. 1,55,240 and the liabilities amounting to Rs. 17,000 were also disputed by the assessee before the authorities concerned. Additions to her returned wealth had resulted from rejecting her rates as mentioned above. Under the circumstances, when the assessee was an illiterate lady and had never filed any returns of wealth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ption to the effect that everyone knows law. In the cases of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & ORS. (1979) 128 ITR 326 (SC) the Supreme Court laid down that" there is no presumption that every person knows law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law but that is not a correct statement; there is no such maxim known to the law". In view of this principle laid down by the Supreme Court, we do not feel convinced with the force of argument of Shri Sharma that since ignorance of law is no excuse, the assessee cannot plead her lack of knowledge of the relevant law with regard to the obligation to file the returns in time. It is an established fact that the assessee is an illiterate lady and that she had ....