These cross appeals by assessee and revenue are heard together and are being disposed of by consolidated order for sake of convenience. T h e assessment years involved are 1970-71 to 1975-76 both inclusive. For these years, return of net wealth from assessee was due on or before 30th day of June of relevant assessment years. However, returns under section 14(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') were not filed on due dates. assessee was not assessed to income-tax. assessee, who is individual and Muslim is widow, and pardanashin lady. She is illiterate. She had only one child--a daughter. She earned her livelihood from agricultural land being looked after by her servants. 2. agricultural land admeasured 23 bighas 5 biswas which was acquired later. Besides this, she had 6 biswas of land which was not acquired. It appears compensation of Rs. 2,93,142.60 was paid as shown at page 32 of paper book. Besides, this assessee received interest and solatium. There was award on 21-3-1975 for all this. She received Rs. 2,11,954 on date of award itself. There were also payments made subsequently. She received final payments in January 1977. On 7-1-1977, she filed returns of her net wealth for all assessment years under appeal voluntarily. Till then no notice under section 14(2) or under section 17 of Act had been issued to assessee. net wealth returned was Rs. 2,29,400, Rs. 2,29,600, Rs. 3,08,496, Rs. 2,98,800, Rs. 2,98,800 and Rs. 3,30,720, respectively for assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76. 3. returns for assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 were revised on 15-2-1977 as recorded in impugned assessments made for these years on 24-2-1977. revision of returns upwards was explained to WTO as per letter at page 4 of paper book. 4. After revision of above returns, WTO issued notice under section 17 for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 on 17-10-1978. In response to this notice, assessee filed returns for these two years on 10- 9-1979 simultaneously. net wealth returned was Rs. 3,47,200 and Rs. 3,47,350 respectively. Assessments under section 17 were completed on 12-9- 1979. Assessment orders made under section 17 read with section 16(3) of Act for these two years appear at pages 21 to 24 of assessee's paper book. assessment orders, in fact, as recorded by WTO himself show that assessee herself brought to notice of WTO that value of plot at Udaipur Khas had been shown at Rs. 84,000 earlier but should be taken at Rs. 98,000 as awarded by Housing Board on 21-3-1975. Since returns filed b y assessee earlier and letter written to WTO had indicated this earlier than reassessment proceedings, assessment orders, therefore, do not include any directions about initiation of penalties for concealment. 5. net wealth assessed in regular assessments for assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 was Rs. 2,43,370, Rs. 2,55,370, Rs. 3,38,800, Rs. 3,30,340 and Rs. 3,37,340, respectively. assessee's net wealth for assessment year 1975-76 was Rs. 4,40,700. This assessment was completed on 11-3-1980 under section 16(3). WTO directed that notice under section 18(1)(a) of Act be issued for delay in furnishing returns. These notices were issued. WTO issued notices on 14-2-1979 fixing hearing on 27-9- 1979 to show cause why penalty need not be levied for delay in furnishing returns. Insofar as assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 are concerned, assessee tendered explanation dated 28-2-1979. It was submitted before WTO that assessee was old widow, illiterate and pardanashin lady having no son, that she owned agricultural lands, which were compulsorily acquired and compensation paid as per award dated 21-3-1975, that returns for years under appeal were filed voluntarily on 17-1-1977, that assessee had also moved application before Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow for waiver of penalties, that assessee had not made any delay and there was no intention to withhold revenue and that in view of her failure to file returns on bona fide basis, proceedings may be dropped. WTO, however, has rejected this explanation with mere observation that ignorance of law is no excuse in eye of law, and assessee was having wealth exceeding taxable limit. As such, it was obligatory on her part to file returns within prescribed time. He, therefore, proceeded to impose impugned penalties. These penalty orders were made on 28-2-1979 under section 18(1)(a) read with section 18(2). penalty imposed was Rs. 55,653, Rs. 50,754, Rs. 63,421, Rs. 47,670 and Rs. 25,100, respectively for assessment years 1970-71 to 1974- 75 on basis of regular assessments. Similarly, for assessment year 1975- 76 penalty of Rs. 29,440 was imposed by order dated 26-2-1982. 6. As mentioned supra, WTO had made reassessments for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 under section 17 read with section 16(3). In submissions of returns in response to notice under section 17 there was delay. For such delay penalty of Rs. 836 and of Rs. 878 was imposed by WTO under section 18(1)(a) by order dated 26-2-1982. appeals bearing Nos. 1487 of 1986 and 1489 of 1986 relate to these penalties. All these penalties were challenged in appeal. 7. learned AAC, Bareilly has made order on each appeal separately. For assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 his orders all dated 21-3-1986 are identically worded. He has held that appellant was agriculturist till agricultural land was compulsorily acquired by said Housing Board and compensation was paid to her on 21-3-1975. Taking into consideration that appellant was old widow, illiterate and pardanashin Muslim lady, having no son, he held that it is quite understandable that till time she was having agricultural income, she carried bona fide belief that she was not liable to wealth-tax. According to learned AAC, she should have become aware of her responsibility of filing wealth-tax returns from 21-3- 1975. He, therefore, held that up to 31-3-1975, she had reasonable cause for delay in furnishing returns. However, with effect from 1-4-1975 to 7-1-1977, according to him, this was not period covered by reasonable cause. He, therefore, directed WTO to recalculate penalty by taking period of default from 1-4-1975 to date of filing return for each year. In assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, he followed his order for assessment year 1972-73 and issued identical directions to WTO for recomputation of penalty. 8. Insofar as penalty levied under section 18(1)(a) for delay in furnishing return in response to notice under section 17 is concerned, penalties were confirmed. In appeals of assessee, grievance is retention of part of penalties for assessment years 1970-71 and 1975-76 indicated supra and for confirming penalties, for delay in furnishing returns in response to notice under section 17. On other hand, revenue is aggrieved in directions issued by learned AAC that delay in furnishing return in each year should be considered only with effect from 1-4-1975 to date of filing of wealth-tax returns for each assessment year. 9. We have heard parties at length and given careful consideration to rival submissions. Before we proceed further, we would like to record that before us, it has been stated at bar by learned counsel for assessee, who has also placed on our record in writing that applications filed by assessee under section 18(2A)/18B of Act are yet to be disposed of. Therefore, matter insofar as those applications are concerned, stands at that. We find that WTO when he rejected assessee's explanation proceeded on assumption that ignorance of law is no excuse in eye of law itself. This assumption of WTO was not in accordance with law because Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know law but that is not correct statement; there is no such maxim known to law. In view of this, WTO proceeded on wrong premises to evaluate evidence tendered before him by assessee. WTO further observed that assessee was having wealth exceeding taxable limit and it was obligatory on her part, to file her returns in prescribed manner under provisions of Act. This is merely begging question because issue was as to why assessee delayed return despite provisions of law being there for her to file return of her net wealth. WTO did not proceed to dispose of various points made out by assessee that caused delay. Therefore, his order was not speaking order against point made by assessee giving reasons for delay in furnishing returns. 10. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Shakuntla Mehra v. CWT [1976] 102 ITR 301 has held that mere failure to file returns within time allowed did not make assessee liable to penalty; there had to be contumacious or deliberate default; and onus was on department to establish that assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing it within time. Hon'ble Court has further held in case of Sona Electric Co. v. CIT [1985] Hon'ble Court has further held in case of Sona Electric Co. v. CIT [1985] 152 ITR 507 that explanation of assessee can be rejected by ITO only on cogent grounds and when such grounds are themselves based on no evidence, question of raising presumption against assessee does not arise. We are aware that observations made by Hon'ble Court in case of Sona Electric Co. are in income-tax case but we are of opinion that observations apply to facts of case before us because when assessee tendered explanation for delay in furnishing return, WTO raised wrong presumption and merely rejected assessee's explanation without giving cogent reasons why application was not acceptable. When matter travelled before AAC he held that up to date assessee's lands were acquired on 21-3-1975 she had reasonable cause for delay in furnishing returns because she had bona fide plea that she being agriculturist was not liable to wealth-tax. However, it appears that learned AAC believed that entire compensation had been received on 21-3-1975. This is not, however, factually correct. We have indicated above how assessee received compensation starting from 21-3-1975 ending in January 1977. conduct of 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 f o r all assessment years under appeal on 7-1-1977. There is no contravention of 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 idea that she was liable to wealth-tax. This conduct of assessee shows that when she became aware she made conscious efforts to comply with provisions of law. 11. We also find that her net wealth was mainly constituted of agricultural land and its value. Therefore, belief of assessee that she never thought of filing return of wealth-tax as she thought she was not liable being agriculturist is absolutely acceptable as bona fide. factum of assessee being widow, being pardanashin lady, having no son and not being assessed to income-tax or wealth-tax and deriving her livelihood from agricultural operations carried on by her servants on her behalf clearly lends credence to claim of bona fide belief and explanation for delay in furnishing return. 12. revenue relied upon judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri [1981] 132 ITR 671 (FB) to contend that doctrine of mens rea which in essence pertains to realm of criminal law would normally not be attracted to imposition of penalty under taxing statute which are coersive civil sanctions and remedies for speedy collection of revenue. However, to our mind this in no way helps revenue on facts of this case. We have also pointed out supra, however, that mere failure to file returns within time allowed did not make assessee liable to penalty as held by Delhi High Court in case of Shakuntla Mehra. issue of mens rea has not come up in this case. Nevertheless, in case of Shakuntla Mehra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that there had to be contumacious or deliberate default. Be as it may, insofar as assessee is concerned, she had tendered simple explanation that she was not at all aware about her responsibilities as she believed that she being agriculturist was not liable to wealth-tax. There is no contravention of this stand of assessee by any evidence. Insofar as other case relied upon by revenue is concerned, it is from Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v. Ami Dyestuff Corpn. [ 1982] 134 ITR 689 in which High Court held that in case of habitual defaulter assessee-firm plea that it had applied for extension of time but had no proof of same, revenue had discharged initial burden of proving that assessee had failed to file returns within time without reasonable cause. ratio of this case is not at all applicable to facts of case before us. 13. Thus, it is clear from what is stated above that assessee had reasonable cause for delay in furnishing returns on basis of which regular assessments were raised. When delay is due to reasonable cause no penalties are leviable. learned AAC, therefore, erred in sustaining penalties for period from 1-4-1975 onwards. His conclusions were based upon facts not fully found. last payment of receipt of compensation was in January 1977 and, therefore, it could not be plea that assessee had taxable net wealth on date of acquisition and on background of case was also aware of filing of wealth-tax returns. These penalties are, therefore, cancelled. 14. Insofar as delay in furnishing returns for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 in reassessment proceedings under section 17 are concerned, we find that it was assessee, who brought to notice of WTO that something needed assessment and had inadvertently been left out. If notice was issued after that we do not see what purpose assessee would have achieved by filing to file returns. Returns were delayed in process and assessments were completed without holding assessee as having concealed anything. On such facts, penalties under section 17 for delay in furnishing returns were not exigible. These are cancelled. 15. In result, appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue dismissed. *** SMT. MALIKA PARVEZ SAMSAYARA v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER