Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 114 1985 SLD 114 1985 PTD 711
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 444 of 1979, decision dated: 13-09-1982
G. L. OZA, ACTG. C, J. AND B.C. VARMA, J
B. K. Rawat for Applicant. D. M. Dharmadbikari for
Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, M. P. II, BHOPAL

VS

MESSRS KEKATPURE GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY, PANDHURNA

Law: Wealth Tax Act, 1957

Section: 18

Income tax---Order imposing penalty-Appeal against-Maintainable even though Commissioner has earlier dismissed the application for waiver of penalty. JUDGMENT OZA, ACTG. C. J.-This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, for answering the following question : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that an appeal before the A. C. C. was maintainable against W. T. O.'s penalty order under section 18(1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957, irrespective of the fact that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had dismissed the petition filed by the assessee for waiver or reduction of penalty under section 18(2-A) of the Wealth-tax Act?" 2. Facts stated in this reference are that the assessee had submitted returns for the years 1964-65 to 1971-72 on 27-3-1973 and had also submitted a petition to the Commissioner, Wealth Tax for waiver of the penalty. The Wealth-tax Officer imposed penalty with regard to the assessment for delay in filing the returns and the Commissioner, Wealth-tax, rejected the application filed by the assessee under section 18(2-A) of the Act for waiver of the penalty. The assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who did not examine the case of the assessee on merits, but dismissed the appeals holding that as the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had rejected their petition under section 18(2-A), therefore, the appeals were not competent. Against this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee went up in appeal, to the Appellate Tribunal which took the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not right in dismissing the appeals merely on the ground that as the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had rejected the application under section 18(2-A), the appeals were not competent. The Tribunal held that the appeals to the Appellate Commissioner were competent and directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the appeals on merits. After this order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, this reference has been made at the *instance of the Revenue for answering the question quoted above. 3. Section 18(2-A) of the Wealth-tax…
🔒
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