Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 1116 1982 SLD 1116 (1982) 136 ITR 184
Allahabad High Court
WT REFERENCE No. 386 OF 1977
RASTOGI, J.
S.K. Yogeshwar for the Applicant. M. Katju for the
Respondent.

Smt. Usha Agarwal

v.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957-Penalty-For late filing of return-Assessee belatedly filed wealth-tax returns due on 29-6-1957 and 29-6-1968-Whether section 18(1)(a), as stood before 1-4-1969, could form the basis for imposing penalty for late filing of return notwithstanding the fact that default continued even after 1-4-1969-Held, yes Facts The assessee filed her wealth-tax returns on 15-11-1969 as against due dates of 29-6-1967 (assessment year 1967-68) and 29-6-1968 (assessment year 1968-69). The WTO imposed penalty under section 18(1)(a ) for the respective years which were reduced by the AAC. On appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal restored the penalties imposed by the WTO observing that a default under section 18(1)(a) was a continuing default attracting the law as applicable from time to time during the period the default continued. On reference : Held Since the due dates for filing the returns were 29-6-1967 and 29-6-1968, the law applicable for the purpose of imposing penalty under section 15(1)(a ) would be the law as it stood prior to its amendment on 1-4-1969. This would be so even if the period of default continued subsequent to 1-4-1969. Case review CWT v. Ram Narain Agarwal [1977] 106 ITR 965 (All.) and CIT v. Smt. Raj Rani Devi [1979] 116 ITR 358 (All.)followed. Cases referred to CWT v. Ram Narain Agrawal [1977] 106 ITR 965 (All.) and CIT v. Smt. Raj Rani Devi [1979] 116 358 (All.) JUDGMENT Rastogi J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, has referred the following questions at the instance of the assessee, for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, as amended w.e.f. April 1, 1969, would apply in imposing the penalty ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty under section 18(l)(a) more than half of the tax levied ?" The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee should have filed her return of wealth-tax by June 29, 1967, and for the assessment year…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492