Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Senatkumar Jayantilal. (Wtr. No. 13 of 1980) Commissioner of Wealth-tax V. Jagatkumar Ratilal. (Wtr No. 10 of 1978). - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Reported in[1982]135ITR180(Guj)
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentSenatkumar Jayantilal. (Wtr. No. 13 of 1980) Commissioner of Wealth-tax V. Jagatkumar Ratilal. (Wtr
Excerpt:
wealth-tax references nos.13 of 1980 and 10 of 1978 - .....returns and file a separate return on behalf of the huf. that is why he revised the original return filed by him which was filed within time, by excluding the ancestral property from his net wealth and filed a fresh return in his capacity as karta of the huf. taking into consideration these facts, the income-tax appellate tribunal, ahmedabad bench b (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the late filing of the return having regard to the circumstances of the case. in our opinion, the view taken by the tribunal is unexceptionable. it is obvious that the original return was filed in time showing a larger wealth. since the assessee has an unfettered right to file a revised return and the assessee in exercise of the said.....
Judgment:

THAKKAR J. - A penalty was imposed against an assessee in respect of the assessment year 1967-68, on the ground that there was a delay in filing the wealth-tax return. The assessee in fact had filed the return in his individual capacity within the prescribed time. Admittedly, there was no delay in the filing of the return in his individual capacity. Subsequently, in view of some judicial pronouncement, the assessee was advised to file a separate return in respect of the ancestral property which had come into his hands which he was so far including in his individual returns as if it was his self-acquired property. It was realised that under the law it was open to him to treat the ancestral property as property belonging to the HUF and to exclude it from his individual returns and file a separate return on behalf of the HUF. That is why he revised the original return filed by him which was filed within time, by excluding the ancestral property from his net wealth and filed a fresh return in his capacity as karta of the HUF. Taking into consideration these facts, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the late filing of the return having regard to the circumstances of the case. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is unexceptionable. It is obvious that the original return was filed in time showing a larger wealth. Since the assessee has an unfettered right to file a revised return and the assessee in exercise of the said right has, in fact, filed a fresh revised return in his capacity as the karta of an HUF in respect of the ancestral properties which were wrongly included in his individual returns, there is no question of imposing any penalty. The view taken by the Tribunal must, therefore, be confirmed. We, accordingly, answer the following questions referred to us as under :

Question

Answer

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?

In the affirmative and against the revenue.

2. Whether, the conclusion of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is right in law and sustainable from the material on record ?

In the affirmative and against the revenue

There will be no order as to costs.


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