KS ADITYAKUMRIBA vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

WTR/40/1983HC GujaratGJHC24012005198306 February 1997Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, KS Adityakumriba, was required to file a wealth tax return for assessment year 1970-71 by June 30, 1970. The return was filed on January 20, 1971, indicating a delay. The assessee had sought an extension of time only up to September 30, 1970. The Wealth Tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 8548 under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for the delayed filing. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding that reasons for the delay beyond September 30, 1970, were not satisfactorily explained. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed this order, leading to a reference to the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in placing the burden of proof on the assessee in penal proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The reasoning was that the cause for not furnishing the return within the prescribed time is ordinarily known to the person who failed to do so. Therefore, it is incumbent upon that person to put forth the cause. The onus is on the assessee to show that the failure to furnish the return in time was due to a reasonable cause. This burden can be discharged by placing relevant material or pointing out facts on record. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT (Addl.) vs. I.M. Patel and Company, which held that it is for the assessee filing a belated return to show reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the penalty was confirmed. The question referred to the High Court was answered in the affirmative, against the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in placing the burden of proof on the assessee in penal proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and in confirming the penalty levied on the ground that the reasons for the delay were not convincing? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court, other than the fact that the question of law was referred for their opinion. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court, other than the fact that the question of law was referred for their opinion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 18(1)(a),Section 14(1),Section 271(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 40 of 1983

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(a)

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →