Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 979 1985 SLD 979 (1985) 152 ITR 16
Madhya Pradesh High Court
30622
P.D. MULYE AND FAIZAN-UD-DIN, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

v.

Smt. Banoo E. Cowasji

Law:

Section:

.SECTION 18(1)(a ) OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 - PENALTY - FOR LATE FILING OF RETURN - 'E', WHO HAD TO FILE HIS WEALTH-TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967-68 ON OR BEFORE 30-9-1967, DID NOT FILE IT DURING THAT PERIOD - E DIED ON 23-12-1967 AND THEREAFTER HIS WIDOW, WHO WAS HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, FILED RELEVANT RETURN ON 18-1-1973 - WHETHER TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT PENALTY PROCLLD1NGS UNDER SECTION 18(1)(a ) FOR DELAY IN FILING RELEVANT RETURN COULD NOT BE INITIATED AGAINST LEGAL HEIRS OF E - HELD, ON FACTS, YES Facts One E had to submit his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1967-68 on or before 30-9-1967, which he did not file during that period. E died on 23-12-1967 and thereafter, his widow, who was his legal representative, filed the relevant return on 18-1-1973. For the delay in filing the said return, the WTO imposed penalty upon the widow under section 18(1)(a). On appeal, the AAC cancelled the penalty imposed. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's order. On reference, the revenue contended that since under section 2(c) , an assessee has been defined to include the legal representative also, the legal representative of E, after the death of her husband for the relevant assessment year should have immediately filed the wealth-tax return on or before 30-9-1968. Held The contention of the revenue was without any merit, because there is no provision of law that as a legal representative of E, the widow was bound to submit the relevant return immediately after the death of E on or before 30-9-1968. Admittedly, E was alive on 30-9-1967, up to which date he had to file the return. Therefore, till that date the legal representative did not come into the picture and no default could be said to have been committed by her, the liability to file the return having been that of her husband who died on 23-12-1967. The Supreme Court in CWT v. Suresh Seth[1981] 129 ITR 328, having held that there could be only one default, the legal representative of E could not be, in any way, held liable for not submitting the wealth-tax return on or before 30-9-1967 and, consequently, no penalty proceedings could be initiated against her in view of the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492