COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. KANAK CHANDRA SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per direction given by this court in Civil Rules Nos. 4(M) and 5(M) of 1977 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for opinion of this court :

(2.) THE assessee is an individual. THE Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act for both the years for late filing of the returns. For the assessment year 1968-69, the Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee filed the return on September 5, 1970, showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,83,566 which was assessed as such. Although the date of filing of the return was extended up to August 31, 1968, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) with which the assessee complied and contended that the accounts of the firm, Janambhumi Press and Janambhumi, were finalised only on January 10, 1970, and the wealth-tax return was filed on September 5, 1970, and as the accounts could not be prepared in time, the assessee could not ascertain his share of profit and details of capital account. THE Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee was a managing partner of the said firm and was an old assessee. He also observed that as per the partnership deed the books of account were to be closed by 31st day of March of that year and the return was to be filed on January 20, 1970. THE Wealth-tax Officer also observed that the assessee did not apply for time if there were any reasonable grounds at all for extension of time. THE Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that the penalty was chargeable. Accordingly, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,732 for the delay of 24 months for the assessment year 1968-69. Similarly, for the assessment year 1969-70, the return was due on or before June 30, 1969, THE assessee filed the return on January 19, 1971, showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,90,672 and was assessed as such. Here also the Wealth-tax Officer rejected the explanation given on the same reason.

(3.) IN this case we find that no question has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Joshi fails.