Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 19 April, 1965
We are aware that the observations made by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Sona Electric Co. (supra) are in an income-tax case but we are of the opinion that the observations apply to the facts of the case before us because when the assessee tendered explanation for delay in furnishing the return, the WTO raised a wrong presumption and merely rejected the assessee's explanation without giving cogent reasons why the application was not acceptable. When the matter travelled before the AAC he held that up to the date the assessee's lands were acquired on 21-3-1975 she had reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the returns because she had bona fide plea that she being an agriculturist was not liable to wealth-tax. However, it appears that the learned AAC believed that the entire compensation had been received on 21-3-1975. This is not, however, factually correct. We have indicated above how the assessee received the compensation starting from 21-3-1975 ending in January 1977. The conduct of the assessee is absolutely in accordance with her stand that she became aware of her responsibilities in January 1977 and when she, in fact, became aware of her responsibilities in January 1977 she hastened to file returns simultaneously for all the assessment years under appeal on 7-1-1977. There is no contravention of the fact that till then she was neither assessed to income-tax nor to wealth-tax. No notice, whatsoever, had till then been issued to her which could give her an idea that she was liable to wealth-tax. This conduct of the assessee shows that when she became aware she made conscious efforts to comply with the provisions of law.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri. on 28 March, 1981
12. The revenue relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri [1981] 132 ITR 671 (FB) to contend that the doctrine of mens rea which in essence pertains to the realm of criminal law would normally not be attracted to the imposition of penalty under the taxing statute which are coersive civil sanctions and remedies for the speedy collection of revenue. However, to our mind this in no way helps the revenue on the facts of this case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Ami Dyestuff Corporation on 9 April, 1981
Insofar as other case relied upon by the revenue is concerned, it is from Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Ami Dyestuff Corpn. [ 1982] 134 ITR 689 in which the High Court held that in the case of a habitual defaulter assessee-firm the plea that it had applied for extension of time but had no proof of the same, the revenue had discharged the initial burden of proving that the assessee had failed to file returns within time without reasonable cause.
Section 14 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
9. We have heard the parties at length and given careful consideration to the rival submissions. Before we proceed further, we would like to record that before us, it has been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the assessee, who has also placed on our record in writing that applications filed by the assessee under Section 18(2A)/18B of the Act are yet to be disposed of. Therefore, the matter insofar as those applications are concerned, stands at that. We find that the WTO when he rejected the assessee's explanation proceeded on the assumption that ignorance of law is no excuse in the eye of law itself. This assumption of the WTO was not in accordance with law because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326 has held (Per Curiam) that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law but that is not a correct statement ; there is no such maxim known to the law. In view of this, the WTO proceeded on wrong premises to evaluate the evidence tendered before him by the assessee. The WTO further observed that the assessee was having wealth exceeding taxable limit and it was obligatory on her part, to file her returns in the prescribed manner under the provisions of the Act. This is merely begging the question because the issue was as to why the assessee delayed the return despite the provisions of law being there for her to file the return of her net wealth. The WTO did not proceed to dispose of the various points made out by the assessee that caused the delay. Therefore, his order was not a speaking order against the point made by the assessee giving reasons for delay in furnishing the returns.
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
1