H.S. AHLUWALIA, J.M. These four appeals have been filed against common order dt. 17th Dec., 1981 of AAC and are, therefore, disposed of by this single order. dispute in all these appeals relates to assessee's liability for penalty under s. 18 (1) (a) of WT Act. WTO noticed that returns for all years in question had been filed on 15th Jan., 1971 whereas they were due on 31st July, 1967, 31st July, 1968, 31st July, 1969 and 31st July, 1970 respectively. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(A) of WT Act and issued show cause notices to which there was no response. Accordingly he levied penalties of Rs. 8,150, Rs. 9,882, Rs. 8,423 and Rs. 2,586 respectively. All these penalties have been deleted on appeals filed by assessee. Revenue has come up in second appeals before us. We have heard representatives of parties at length, in all these appeals. Though dispute in these appeals is common, facts in various years and ground for deletion of penalties by AAC are slightly different. In relation to asst. yr. 1969-70 AAC's discussion shows that assessee's case was that return of wealth was normally due on 31st July, 1969 but assessee had made application praying for extension of time till 31st Oct., 1969 and return had been filed on 31st Oct., 1969 under IT Act. fact of assessee's appealing for extension was borne out by acknowledgement issued by ITO. According to assessee it was only duplicate return of wealth which was filed on 15th Jan., 1971. WTO had referred only to date of filing of this duplicate return and this fact was found to be correct on verification. delay on part of assessee if at all, was from 31st July, 1969 to 31st Oct., 1969 for which application for extension of time had been made to ITO. copy of acknowledgement in token of having received this application was shown to us at time of hearing of this appeal and apparently we do not see any reason to doubt genuineness of original. assessee's representative also drew our attention to copy of letter dt. 26th March, 1981 which according to him had been filed before WTO in which this plea had been specifically taken. It also appears that WTO has mechanically levied penalties in all these case without taking into consideration fact that due dates for filing returns in all these years were not same i.e., 31st July, as he has observed. Considering facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that so far as levy of penalty for asst. yr. 1969-70 is concerned there is no ground for interference with orders of AAC. At this stage, departmental appeal No. 421 (Cal) of 1982 is accordingly dismissed. Coming to year 1970-71 assessee's contention before AAC was that there was no default on his part. In normal course return was due on 31st July, 1970. assessee had some agricultural lands whose value had to be determined for being included in total wealth. For this reason Board had granted general extension of time for filing returns of wealth in case of persons owing agricultural lands or other assets related there to vide Board's Circular No. 78 (F. No. 378/11/72-WT) dt. 17th Feb., 1972. return was actually filed by assessee on 15th Jan., 1971 long before extended during date. There was, therefore, no default on his part for this year also. Apparently conclusion of AAC appears to be well justified and representative of Department had not much to say in this behalf as well. appeal for this year (No. 422/Cal/1982 ) also stands dismissed. Coming to earlier two years reasonable cause alleged for delay i n filing of return alleged by assessee before AAC was that in June, 1965 assessee's mother had died after prolonged illness. Immediately thereafter disputes arose amongst members of family and they were not in their normal state of mind to attend to any work in normal course. Before assessee could resume his work properly, his father Radha Charan Chatterjee also died on 29th Nov., 1969 causing disturbance in family. According to him, these circumstances constituted reasonable cause within meaning of s. 18(1)(a). AAC also held that legal burden was upon WTO to establish by some evidence that assessee had without reasonable cause failed to furnish return within statutory period. We, however, are not inclined to wholly accept this conclusion of AAC. Although we are not very much impressed by orders of WTO who had mechanically chosen to levy penalties, we find that all pleas which have now been accepted by AAC were not actually before WTO. Either there was no plea taken before WTO or at best plea taken was one contained in letters alleged to have been filed before WTO on 26th March, 1981 copies of which were produced before us by representative of assessee himself. plea was that delay was caused due to some family disputes after death of assessee's mother and returns were filed before issue of notice under s. 14(2) voluntarily and in good faith making true disclosure of net wealth. Now neither prolonged illness of mother nor death of assessee's father are taken as reasonable cause. most important fact to note in this behalf is that for asst. yr. 1969-70 assessee's own case is that he had filed his returns on 31st Oct., 1969. Well, if assessee could file his return of wealth for year 1969-70 on 31st Oct., 1969 after obtaining extension for three months as has been alleged by him there was absolutely no reason as to why he was not in position to file returns of wealth for earlier years i.e., 1967-68 and 1968-69 on or before that day i.e., 31st Oct., 1969. argument of Sri Thard, representative of assessee in this behalf was that it really appears that all returns were filed by assessee well within time. In fact, assessee had been very regular in filing his returns right from year 1964- 65 to 1976-77 and it was only for these two years that original returns were not traceable. Therefore, assessee had filed duplicate returns on 15th Jan., 1971 for these years. May be that this contention of Sri Thard is correct but we are to go by record and not by surmises or conjectures. assessee's own replies alleged to have been filed before WTO were to effect that returns were filed on 15th Jan., 1971 for first time. It is correct that there is no record worth name with Department to show exactly when original returns were filed but case has to be decided on pleas raised by parties and not on surmises or conjectures. When assessee himself conceded that returns had been filed on 15th Jan., 1971 it is now too late in day for Sri Thard to argue and for us to hold that returns had been filed well within time. Therefore, on this plea assessee cannot succeed. However, assessee may succeed on another plea that he could not file returns in time due to his personal circumstances earlier and on 31st Oct., 1969 when he filed return for year 1969-70 it was due to oversight that he did not file returns for earlier years. But this is not plea which was either taken before AAC or has been considered by him. Since plea emerges from documents already on record and WTO does not appear to have considered pleas of assessee taken in this behalf properly, we are of opinion that it will be fair that this belated plea is considered notwithstanding of delay in its being put forward. Accordingly, we direct that for these two years AAC shall decide question of levy of penalties afresh after considering all facts and circumstances of case and also give reasonable opportunity of being heard to WTO as well. Before concluding, we may point out that amounts of penalties levied by WTO for these years do not appear to be in accordance with law. WTO has levied penalties from 1st Aug., 1967 and 1st Aug., to 31st March, 1969 @ 2 per cent per months of assessed tax. Thereafter, he has enhanced penalties from 1st April 1969 onwards @ 1/2 per cent of net wealth for each month of default in accordance with amended law. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CWT vs. Suresh Seth (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 3 4 9 : (1981) 129 ITR 328 (SC) that non-performance of any of Acts mentioned in s. 18(1)(a) of WT Act gives rise to single default and single penalty measure whereof is geared up to time lag between last date on which return had to be filed and date on which it was filed. There is only one default and words for each month during which default continues does not mean that there is fresh default in each month. rate of penalties would, therefore, not be enhanced as result of amendment coming into force after due date of filing of returns. This is also what has been held by Calcutta High Court in Tarak Nath Paul vs. CWT (1983) 32 CTR (Cal) 61: (1983) 142 ITR 468 (Cal). Therefore, AAC will duly consider this aspect of matter and if he chooses to uphold levy of any penalties he will determine amounts payable by assessee in accordance with law as discussed above. In result, ITA Nos. 421 & 422 (Cal) of 1982 are dismissed and ITA Nos. 419 & 420 (Cal) of 1982 are allowed for statistical purposes. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. UMA CHARAN CHATTERJEE