Delay in filing income tax returns does not automatically justify the delay in filing wealth tax returns; each case needs to be examined based on its specific facts and circumstances.

N.K.Sud, J.

1. This order will dispose of two appeals, viz., W. T. A. Nos. 10 and 11 of 2001, directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal"), dated July 5, 2001, relating to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, respectively.

2. The return of net wealth for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were due to be filed by the assessee under Section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, (for short "the Act"), on or before June 30, 1982, and June 30, 1983, respectively. The return for the assessment year 1982-83 declaring a net wealth of Rs. 7,60,400 was filed on March 13, 1987, i.e., after a delay of 56 months whereas the return for the assessment year 1983-84 declaring net wealth of Rs. 7,77,900 was filed on November 30, 1983, involving a delay of four completed months. While completing the assessments, penalty proceedings under Section 18(1) (a) of the Act were initiated for levy of penalty for the delay in filing the returns. The assessee, in response to the show-cause notices, contended that substantial wealth had been assessed in his hands on protective basis but for which he was not required to file any return under Section 14(1) of the Act. It was further pleaded that there was a delay in filing the income-tax returns for the two years in question as well and thus, the delay up to the date of filing of those returns should be considered as a reasonable cause for delay in filing the wealth-tax returns, which could not have been filed without the determination of tax liability under the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and levied the penalty at the rate of 2 per cent, per month for the delay involved in the two years.

3. The assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and it was submitted that since the assessments had been framed on protective basis, no penalty was leviable under Section 18(1) (a) of the Act in view of the judgment of this court in CIT v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal [1983] 141 ITR 32. This contention was accepted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeals and cancelled the penalties.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal, which have been disposed of vide the impugned order dated July 5, 2001. The Tribunal has rejected the first plea of the assessee that no penalty was leviable as the assessment had been made on protective basis. It was observed that the net wealth of the assessee for the two assessment years under consideration, even without the items assessed on protective basis is his hands, was above the taxable limit as prescribed under the Act. The assessee, was therefore, statutorily required to file the returns of net wealth within the time prescribed under Section 14(1) of the Act.

5. However, the Tribunal accepted the second contention of the assessee that the delay up to the date of filing of the income-tax returns should be considered as attributable to a reasonable cause as wealth tax returns could not have been filed without the determination of the income-tax liability. Since, the income-tax return for the assessment year 1982-83 had been filed on August 29, 1985, the Tribunal held that the delay for levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) should be computed from that date. Since the delay thereafter was for a period of 18 months, it was held that penalty be levied for that period only. As far as the assessment year 1983-84 is concerned, it was found that the income-tax return had also been filed on November 30, 1983, i.e., the date on which the wealth-tax return had been filed. Since, both the returns had been filed on the same day, the Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable under Section 18(1) (a) of the Act.

6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and are of the view that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

7. The Tribunal ap