Skip to content


Second Wealth-tax Officer Vs. C. Kuppuswamy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)3ITD293(Mad.)
AppellantSecond Wealth-tax Officer
RespondentC. Kuppuswamy
Excerpt:
.....the delay in the filing of the return was cancelled by the aac by following the decision of the madras high court in the case of addl. cwt v. babulal k. shah [1978] 114 itr 370. the revenue has appealed to contend that the decision of the madras high court should not be applied to the facts of the case because the filing of the income-tax return in the assessee's case was not a pre-requisite for filing the wealth-tax return and, therefore, the delay in the preparation of the income-tax return could not be taken as a reasonable cause for failure to file the wealth-tax return in time. but, we are unable to accept this contention because apart from the decision of the madras high court, in babulal's case (supra), the proviso to section 14(1) of the act also enables the assessee to file.....
Judgment:
1. These two appeals by the revenue are directed against the common order of the AAC cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').

2. The assessee has filed the belated returns both under the Income-tax Act as well as under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 on 1-3-1978, even though they were due on 31-7-1972 and 31-7-1973 respectively. The penalty imposed for the delay in the filing of the return was cancelled by the AAC by following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Addl. CWT v. Babulal K. Shah [1978] 114 ITR 370. The revenue has appealed to contend that the decision of the Madras High Court should not be applied to the facts of the case because the filing of the income-tax return in the assessee's case was not a pre-requisite for filing the wealth-tax return and, therefore, the delay in the preparation of the income-tax return could not be taken as a reasonable cause for failure to file the wealth-tax return in time. But, we are unable to accept this contention because apart from the decision of the Madras High Court, in Babulal's case (supra), the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act also enables the assessee to file the wealth-tax return during the time allowed for filing the income-tax return, thus recognising the statutory principle behind the decision of the Madras High Court in Babulal's case (supra).

The Act, therefore, does not prescribe the imposition of penalty in the case of delay in filing the wealth-tax return, if the delay is occasioned by the filing of the income-tax return because if such delay is condoned it has to be condoned in the wealth-tax proceedings also and if such delay is penalised, then again there could not be a further penalty under the Act for the same delay. In the circumstances we cannot find fault with the AAC for following the decision of the Madras High Court in BabuIal's case (supra) and cancelling the penalties imposed. We, accordingly, confirm his order. The appeals are dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //