LAWS(KAR)-1973-7-2

MICHAEL FERNANDES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

Decided On July 12, 1973
MICHAEL FERNANDES Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a batch of five writ petitions preferred by a common Assessee under the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. The writ petitions relate to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. The petitioner did not file his returns on the due dates, but he filed the same on 16th December 1969 pursuant to notices issued to him under S.17(2) in respect of the first four assessment years and under S. 14(2) for the assessment year 1968-69. His returns were accepted and he was assessed to tax ranging from Rs.469 to Rs.637 for the net wealth assessed by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred revision petitions against the net wealth, but the same were dismissed.

(2.) The Wealth-Tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under S.18 of the Act. By separate orders made on 22-8-1970 he imposed penalties ranging from Rs. 3,986 to Rs. 5,191. The total amount of penalty levied was Rs. 21,590. The total amount of tax for the five assessment years amounted to Rs. 2,570.

(3.) Before the Wealth-Tax Officer, in response to notice issued under S.18(2) of the Act, the petitioner offered his written explanation to show that the belated returns were not without reasonable cause. His explanation was that he was not aware that he is liable to tax taking into consideration the value of the properties at their original cost. The Wealth-Tax Officer rejected the explanation on the ground that the Assessee himself has admitted the total wealth and therefore he had no reasonable cause tor filing a belated Return. Against the order imposing penalty, the petitioner preferred five revision petitions in WTLRP. Nos.530 to 534/70 CIT under S.25 of the Act, Before the Commissioner, the petitioner urged two grounds. Firstly, that the belated returns were not without reasonable cause; secondly, he urged that relief could be given to him under S.16(2A) cf the Act and that he satisfies the conditions prescribed by the said sub-secxion. The Commissioner rejected both the contentions and dismissed the revision petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Art.226 of the Constn.