Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.18 seconds)Section 18 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gujarat Travancore Agency on 10 September, 1974
He also referred to a decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Travancore Agency [1976] 103 ITR 149. The Full Bench held in this case that the department must prove the mens rea before levying a penalty under Section 271(1 )(a) was not the correct view. Mere use of the expression 'without reasonable cause' cannot import a mental element or mens rea. Before imposition of penalty under Section 271 what is required is that the officer must be satisfied not arbitrarily but judicially that the person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return.
Section 270 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rawat Singh And Sons on 18 February, 1977
But the case relied upon by the assessee in Rawat Singh & Son's case (supra) which was delivered by the Rajasthan High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court and which is binding on me, seemed to me to take a different view. I should, therefore, follow what was laid down by the Rajasthan High Court. In this context I may also point out that penalties levied for subsequent years on the same assessee for more or less similar reasons were cancelled by the Tribunal. I am, therefore, of the opinion that on taking into account the totality of the circumstances the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the return of wealth and that the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member is more appropriate and justified and I would express my agreement with that view.