TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (9) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents were confirmed by the AAC but the Tribunal set aside the orders for the first block of years on 4th April, 1974 and the second block on 13th Jan., 1975. The AAC set aside the order for 1972-73 on 30th Sept., 1974. The reassessments for the asst. yr. 1964-65 to 1969-70 was completed WTO on 30th June, 1976. The reassessments for the remaining years were completed on 30th July, 1976, 21 st Aug., 1976 and 31st July 1976 The WTO imposed penalties under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act on 24th Nov., 1978. When the matter went in appeal to the AAC he held that the WTO should have taken the period of default as the interval between the date on which the return was due and the first ex-parte assessment was made. He also held that the penalties should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the Revenue. But the Revenue after having conceded this point before the AAC now has taken the view that the concession was wrongly made and should not have been accepted by the AAC Shri Gupta. ld. Deptl. Rep. Argued that when an assessment is set aside it does not survive at all. The penalty proceedings initiated in the course of such an assessment also get quashed but the revive when the final assessment is made. Hence, it is to be considered whether the assessee filed a return in the course of the reassessment proceedings and if such a return has been filed, the period of default will naturally run up to the date of filing of the return. 4. We are afraid that we cannot accept this contention. Once a matter has been specifically g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nov., 1978 requested the WTO to keep those proceedings in abeyance fill the disposal of the pending appeals filed against the quantum of assessments. The WTO ignoring the assessee's prayer levied penalties for each of the assessment years under consideration on 24th Nov., 1978. In doing so he passed penalty order by filling up the Forms meant for levy of penalty under the IT Act. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC and contended that the penalties levied were fit to be cancelled inasmuch as the WTO while imposing the penalties did neither consider the assessee's explanation nor did he apply his mind. It was contended that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns ad the assessee was under the Bona fide belief that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the assessee was not specifically framed. Reliance was placed on the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rewati Pd Bharatbhushan reported in Tax Reporter 1976 at p. 247 to point out that the penalties levied under similar circumstances were cancelled by the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued to urge that the lower authorities failed to consider that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the WT Returns. He contended that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that the impugned wealth belonged to the HUF and pointed out that protective assessments were also made on the returns filed by the HUF showing the impugned wealth. He pointed out that the liability of the assessee to file the WT ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the returns of income from the wealth in question were filed by the assessee himself in his individual capacity. He urged that there is no authority for the proposition that penalty should not be levied in a case where incidence of tax is not substantial. According to him, it was a fit case where penalties should be levied. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, considered the facts on record and are of the opinion, that no penalty should have been imposed for any of the assessment years under consideration. It is the case of the assessee that he was under the bona fide belief that the impugned wealth belonged to the HUF and on the basis of the said belief. WT Returns in respect of the disputed wealth were filed and that matter was t....