There are two appeals, by assessee against levy of penalty under section 18(1) (a) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') for delayed filing of wealth-tax returns for assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. 2. wealth-tax return for assessment year 1976-77 was due on 30- 7-1976 but was actually filed on 27-10-1979 and, there was thus, delay of 38 months. wealth-tax return for assessment year 1977-78 was due on 30- 7-1977 and was filed on 27-10-1979 and there was delaty of 26 months. WTO initiated penalty proceedings and in his reply assessee stated that return could not be filed in time as assesse was sick being chronic patient of heart trouble. This contention was not accepted by learned WTO as assessee did not produce any evidence to substantiate allegation. WTO levied penalty of Rs. 2,560 and Rs. 1,110 respectively for two years. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals to AAC and contended that since returns for income-tax were delayed having been filed on 11-4-1978 and 25-7-1978 for two years, assessee could not file his wealth-tax returns earlier and, therefore, as observed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Addl. CWT v. Babulal K. Shah [1978] 114 ITR 370 up to those dates assessee had reasonable cause for not filing wealth-tax returns. This contention was negatived by learned AAC who upheld penalties. 3. We have heard learned counsel for assessee and learned departmental representative. contention that returns could not be filed because of illness was negatived by WTO for want of evidence and was not pressed further before learned AAC. At hearing of present appeals also, no such argument was raised nor is there any specific ground on point in memorandums of two appeals. learned counsel for assessee contended that assessee is income-tax as well as wealth-tax assessee and, therefore, particulars of his assets and liabilities and income-tax liabilities are relevant fore furnishing his wealth-tax returns and that since income-tax returns were filed on 11-4-1978 and 25-7-1978 for two years respectively assessee could not file his wealth-tax returns earlier and delay in submission of income-tax returns is reasonable cause for delay in submission of wealth-tax returns irrespective of whether there was any reasonable cause for delay, in submission of income- tax returns. For this proposition, he relied upon Madras High Court judgment referred to above. 4. We find that this contention is based on misreading of judgment and misreading results from summary given below head-note. observations of Hon'ble Madras High Court are as below: "..... We are of view that in certain circumstances delay in finalising one's income-tax return might by itself be just reason for delay in filing same person's wealth-tax return. Wealth-tax assessee are required to make returns of their net wealth on given valuation dates and in order to do so, it is essential that they should correctly represent their debts and liabilities as they subsist as on said valuation dates. If wealth-tax assessees are also income-tax assessees, their liability towards income-tax would be necessary ingredient in arriving at correct net wealth which has to be disclosed in their wealth-tax returns. correct ascertainment of particulars of table income of person would, therefore, be necessary step in ascertaining position of net wealth of same person on relevant valuation date. It follows from these premises therefore, that any reasonable delay in preparation of particulars of assessee's income for purpose of income-tax cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant, while considering whether any consequential delays in filing of same assessee's wealth-tax return was for reasonable cause or not....." (p. 374) In head note word 'reasonable' has been omitted by editor of report, and, therefore, any one who bases his opinion only on head-note without going through text of report could agree to contention raised by learned counsel for assessee that any delay in preparation of particulars of assessee's income can be reasonable cause for delay in submission of wealth-tax returns. learned counsel for assessee brought to out notice order of this Bench in case of Smt. Chanandevi v. WTO [WT Appeals Nos. 271 and 272 of 1982, dated 25-8-1983] in which learned counsel appears to have got decision in his favour by Bench relying on head-note alone. order in case of Smt. Chanandevi (supra) is patently result of misreading of judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court and is no good precedent. Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that any reasonable delay in preparation of particulars of assessee's income for purposes of income can be considered while considering whether there was any reasonable cause for delay in submission of wealth-tax returns. This means that reasonability of cause for delay in submission of returns of income-tax has to be made out which leads to result that reasonability of cause has to be shown in wealth-tax proceedings as well and delay in submission of income-tax returns cannot be mechanically accepted as reasonable cause for delayed submission of wealth-tax returns as canvassed by learned counsel for assessee. In later judgment in assessee's own case in WT Appeal No. 310 of 1982 for assessment year 1975-76, we had negatived similar contention raised by learned counsel for assessee. 5. argument of similar nature is often raised in connection with delayed income-tax returns by persons who are partners in firm. It is usually contended that if income-tax return of partnership firm is delayed, delay in filing of return of partner up to date of filing of income-tax return by firm must automatically be held to arise out of reasonable cause because unless income of firm is determined, partner's share cannot be worked. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Madan Lamba v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 849 negatived such meehanical approach and held that cause for delay of return of partner has to be independently looked into and where firm's return is also delayed, it will have to be found out how far partner concerned is responsible for delay in submission of firm's return. Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "..... On other hand, it is equally possible that there may be case in which partner in question is substantially controlling affairs of firm and that he holds up finalisation of accounts and filing of firm's return to suit his convenience and only with view to postpone payment of tax on his share income or on his other income. To extent such delay is caused by him and is instrumental in delaying payment of tax in his individual assessment there is no reason why penalty should not be imposed on him assessment there is no reason why penalty should not be imposed on him merely because there was some delay in firm's case. These illustrations show that it may not be equitable, just or necessary to assume always that partner cannot be held responsible for firm's delay. we are, therefore, unable to agree with with attempts of counsel before us to evolve, from Mysore, Orissa and Punjab and Haryana High Courts on one hand and Punjab and Allahabad High Courts on other (which are based on facts of cases before them), certain general principles universally applicable to all cases. It seems to us that conclusion has to be reached in each case on consideration of all circumstances including two grounds indicated above and that it would be unsafe and incorrect to enunciate any principle of general application to all situations. Confining ourselves for time being to section 271(1) (a) we think that imposibility of penalty on partner should depend upon consideration of following circumstances: (a) whether he is partner of registered firm or unregistered firm; (b) whether he had income other than share income or not, and if so, nature and extent of such income; (c) whether he is one of several partners to whom any contumacious conduct on part of firm could not be attributed or whether he is for all practical purposes brain behind firm or able to control its affairs, and so, responsible for its delays and defaults; (d) whether any penalty has been or can be imposed on firm and if so, extent and nature thereof; and (e) whether partner has any independent reason for delay in filing of return apart from that urged in case of firm". (p. 861) 6. result of two rulings is same, i.e., assessee has to show independently in each case that he had reasonable cause for not furnishing income-tax or wealth-tax return in time. delay in submission of one return cannot mechanically be accepted to be reasonable cause for delayed submission of other return. As is evident from facts of present case assessee did not lead any evidence to establish cause why wealth-tax return could not be submitted in time. At first stage, he took up stand that he was ill. No evidence was produced to substantiate alleged illness and that contention was later on abandoned. Therefore, assessee failed to established existence of reasonable cause for delay in filing of two returns and, therefore, he was liable to penalty. 7. At hearing counsel for assesse pointed out that for assessment year 1976-77 assessee was allowed extension of time to file his return of income up to 31-12-1976, and, therefore, in terms of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act, assessee could file his return of wealth-tax for assessment year 1976-77 up to 31-12-1976 as assessee's wealth include assets held in assessee's transport business. He has placed before us copy of income-tax assessment order for 1976-77 which mentions that extension for filing of return was allowed up to 31-12-1976. learned departmental representative, therefore, conceded that wealth-tax return could also be filed by that date in terms of aforesaid proviso. result would, therefore, be that delay would commence from 1-1-1976 and as wealth-tax return would be due on 31-12-1976 as against 31-7-1976 mentioned by WTO. delay in assessment year 1976-77, is, therefore, of 33 months and not 38 months as calculated by learned WTO. penalty before this year, therefore, deserves to be reduced accordingly. 8. In view of above discussion assessee's appeal for assessment year 1976-77 has to be allowed in part while appeal for assessment year 1977-78 has to be disallowed in toto. 9. In result, WT Appeals No. 255 of 1983 is partly allowed and period of delay in filing of wealth-tax return for assessment year 1976-77 is held to be 33 months as against 38 months adopted by WTO and WTO is directed to recalculate penalty leviable and reduce amount of penalty accordingly. WT Appeal No. 256 of 1983 is dismissed. *** MULKRAJ HURIA v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER