1987 (3) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O to recalculate the penalty on the basis of the revised total wealth. 3. The assessee is still aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us contending that the CWT(A) did not consider all the facts placed before him. The case record of the assessee was transferred from A-II Ward to D-I Ward thereby creating a great deal of suspense and confusion. Over and above, the wealth of the assessee consists of his individual assets as well as his interest in the estate and trust of his father late Casamally Jairazbhoy. In that view of the matter, the return could not be filed in time. It is, therefore, submitted that the penalty was not justified. In any case, it is contended that the assessee in this case applied for extension of time upto 31st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....commenced from the date of default and as such has to be dealt with in accordance with law as on the date of default. In this particular case, the return which was due for 30st June, 1975 being defaulted by the assessee, the law as on that date is correctly applicable as done by the authorities below. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for in this regard. 4. On careful consideration we are of the view that the CWT(A) in this case was justified in rejecting the explanation offered insofar as the reason for the delay is concerned. The assessee in this case was not in a position to give any valid reason as to why he could not file the return for the year under consideration in time. Mere transfer of the assessment re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vs. Union of India & Ors. (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC), Supreme Court held that penalty in Punj's case for asst. yr. 1961-62, for which return was filed on 3rd May, 1962, may be imposed under the 1961 Act. In that context, they overruled their decision in CWT vs. Suresh Seth (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 349 : (1981) 129 ITR 328 (SC) and held that there is a continuing default in late filing of return. At page 340, Supreme Court noted that Jain Bros. was with reference to IT Act, 1961 and provisions of s. 18(1)(a) of WT Act, as amended, brought in a similar provisions and a sum equal to 2 per cent of the tax for every month during which default continued becomes payable. Supreme Court further observed that the question of imposition of penalty would arise o....