TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (10) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his question arises for consideration were filed in the month of March 1991. The assessments were made by the Assessing Officer in the month of February/March 1992. 4.1 The learned authorised representative of the assessee submitted that the assessments for these years were clearly barred by limitation of time. Assessment up to assessment year 1987-88 ought to have been completed before 31st March, 1991. The return for assessment year 1987-88 could be furnished up to 31st March, 1990 and return for the earlier year ought to have been furnished before that date as per the relevant provisions contained in the W.T. Act. In no case the return of wealth for assessment year 1987-88 or earlier years could be furnished after 31st March, 1990 and no such assessment for assessment year 1987-88 or earlier year could be completed after 31st March, 1991. He also submitted written submissions along with letter dated 17-10-1995 in which elaborate arguments were submitted to support this contention. 4.2 The learned Sr. departmental representative also submitted written submissions in this regard to support the view taken by the Dy. CIT(A) holding that assessments in question cannot be treated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve of the 31st day of March, 1991 or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Section 16(7) reads as under : (7) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year and references in this section to the other provisions of this Act shall be construed as references to those provisions for the time being in force and applicable to the relevant assessment year. Section 17A(1) reads as under : 17A(1) : No order of assessment shall be made under section 16 at any time after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the net wealth was first assessable. Provided that--- (a) where the net wealth was first assessable in the assessment year commencing on the 1st of April, 1987, or any earlier assessment year, such assessment may be made on or before the 31st day of March, 1991 ; (b) where the net wealth was first assessable in the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, such assessment may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n make an assessment in accordance with separate limitation of time provided in section 17A, sub-section (2) and the proviso to sub-section (2). In the present case, the Wealth-tax Officer has not issued any notice under section 17 for regularising the belated and non est return furnished after the prescribed limitation of time. Therefore, the assessment for assessment year 1987-88 or any earlier assessment year ought to have been made on or before 31-3-1991. The assessments in the present cases for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 have admittedly been made in the month of February/March 1992. The assessments so made after the expiry of limitation of time prescribed in proviso (a) to section 17A(1) are, therefore, clearly barred by limitation of time. Such a common ground raised by these assessees in the concerned appeals is, therefore, allowed. 5. The remaining grounds raised in all these appeals [except the Appeal Nos. 656 to 658 relating to penalty under section 18(1)(a)] involve consideration of points relating to non-deduction of outstanding wealth-tax and income-tax liabilities or it relates to alleged invalidity of reference made to Valuation Officer under section 16A o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; of wealth Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981-82 3-9-83 31-7-81 31-3-86 1,17,490 1982-83 30-3-85 31-7-82 31-3-87 1,42,800 1984-85 31-3-87 31-7-84 31-3-89 2,05,400 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.2. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not submit any explanation in response to show-cause notice under section 18(1)(a). The assessee is a habitual defaulter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Madras High Court in the case of Addl. CWT v. Babulal K. Shah [1978] 114 ITR 370 should not be accepted. It was pointed out by the learned Sr. departmental representative Mr. Lohia that the Tribunal in the cases of H.H. Maharani Manharkunverba and H.H. Maharaja Daljitsinghji in its order dated 1-12-1989 in WTA Nos. 364 & 365/A/88 and WTA Nos. 455 and 456/A/88 has taken such a view by relying upon the head note of the judgment of Babulal K. Shah's case which was reproduced in para-4 of that order. He pointed out that the Head Note of the said judgment was not properly drawn. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid judgment that any reasonable delay in the preparation of the particulars of the assessee's income for the purposes of income-tax return cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant while considering whether any consequential delays in the filling of the same assessee's wealth-tax return was for reasonable cause or not. In the Head Note, the word ' reasonable ' has been omitted by the Editor of the said report. He further relied upon the elaborate reasons given by the CIT(A) in para 5 to 7 of the order of the CIT(A) appearing at pg. 4 to 10 of the said order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er W.T. Act. But in the case of an assessee who does not care to file within the time allowed both the IT return and WT return, will escape the levy of penalty on the simple ground that the I.T. return could not be prepared and the IT liability could not be determined. Thus, a person who commits default under both the Acts and for a longer period may be subjected to penalty, but a person who complied with the requirement of filing of the I.T. return, but unfortunately could not file the W.T. return will be liable for penalty for delayed submission of return under WT Act, if the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court is applied without careful consideration of the relevant facts. He, therefore, strongly urged that the penalty in the present case should be confirmed particularly in view of the fact that the returns have been filed late by the assessee in various previous years as well as in the years under consideration. He submitted that the assessee's own faults can never be treated as a reasonable cause or as a valid excuse to justify the delay in filing of the return. Reliance was placed by the Sr. departmental representative on the decision reported in Jiyalal Shyamlal (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 and submitted that the CIT(A) ought to have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court as a whole. A mere omission of the word'reasonable'in the Head Note would not lead to the conclusion that the ratio of the Madras High Court judgment was not properly understood by the Tribunal while applying the same in the earlier decisions in assessee's own case and in the cases of other family members on identical facts. He submitted that such an approach is neither desirable nor permissible and the authorities below could not pick out a word or sentence from the particular judgments divorced from the context of the question under consideration. He submitted that consistency is one of the time honoured principle of law recognised by Various Courts. The Tribunal therefore should not take a different view than the one taken in earlier decisions on identical facts particularly when the facts are identical and no other judgment of any other High Court has been pointed out by the learned Sr. departmental representative. 6.15 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned representatives. The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that each case will have to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of that particular case whether the over-lapping period of delay could be considered as a reasonable cause or not. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Babulal K. Shah and in the case of V. Venugopal considered this very question as to whether delay in filing of the I.T. return could be treated as a reasonable cause for delay in filing of the W.T. return. It will be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant extracts from the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V. Venugopal as appearing at pg. 396 and 397 of 149 ITR : " In this case, the Tribunal felt that the assessee could file the wealth-tax returns only after the finalisation of his income-tax returns and, therefore, the entire delay in the filing of the returns for the various years cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and that portion of the delay before the filing of the income-tax returns should not be taken into account for the levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a). Though the Tribunal refers to the fact that the assessee has paid penalty for the delayed filing of income-tax returns, it can....