YOGESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ADDL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are as follows: THE assessee is an individual. THE return of wealth under Section 14(1) of the Act was filed by him on January 15, 1971, and the same was due on June 30, 1969. Thus, there was a delay of 18 months in the filing of the return for the assessment year 1969-70 and of six months in filing the return for the assessment year 1970-71. THE assessee filed the returns in the status of an HUF disclosing an income of Rs. 1,07,550 for the assessment year 1969-70 and of Rs. 1,38,820 for the assessment year 1970-71. THE assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 in his status as an individual. THE ITO in the assessment orders assessed the assessee in his status as an individual.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the conditions for the filing of the returns as an HUF under the I.T. Act were entirely different for the years in question and as the assessee was an unmarried single person he could not have filed his returns for income-tax in the status of an HUF, while there were no such conditions in existence for determining the status of a person as an HUF under the provisions of the Act. In any case, according to him, this was a matter not free from doubt and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee deliberately filed the return after the prescribed time and, therefore, was liable to penalty on that ground. THE contention of the learned counsel for the assessee cannot be upheld. Whether the assessee in the circumstances of the case had a reasonable cause for filing the returns after the prescribed time is a question of fact. THE Tribunal has considered the explanation of the assessee and has held that the assessee had no reasonable cause for the late filing of the return. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal being on a question of fact no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to refer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee because they are distinguishable on facts.