| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 2762 1987 SLD 2762 (1987) 163 ITR 825 |
Delhi High Court
YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND MAHINDER NARAIN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND MAHINDER NARAIN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
v.
Amolak Singh Jain*
Law:
Section:
Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 - Penalty - For late filing of return - Or assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65, assessee filed returns for the first time on 30-3-1970 - Whether WTO was justified in imposing penalty under section 18(1)(a) as amended with effect from 1-4-1969 - Held, on facts, yes FACTS For the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65 the assessee's wealth-tax returns were submitted for the first time on 30-3-1970. The WTO imposed penalty under section 18(1)(a) as per amended law brought into force with effect from 1-4-1969. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the default in filing the returns started to operate from the due dates when the returns should have been filed and, therefore, the penalty should have been levied under the provisions of section 18(1)(a) which were in force at the time when the default commenced. On reference: HELD In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 57 ITR 330 in the present case, the penalty would have to be imposed in accordance with the amended provisions which came into force on 1-4-1969. CASE REVIEW Maya Rani Punj. V. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC) followed and relied upon. CASES REFERRED TO Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC). P.N. Misra and D.C. Taneja for the Applicant. JUDGMENT Payal, J. - This order will dispose of Wealth-tax Reference Nos. 6 to 11 of 1976, relating to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65. The question 3ferred by the Tribunal for opinion of this Court is mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the statement of case, which reads as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty amount could not exceed 50 per cent of the tax?" "This question arises for opinion in the following circumstances as arrated in paragraph 3 of statement of the case which is as under: (1) ** ** ** (2) The background of the facts is that in each of these years, the assessee's wealth was assessable to wealth-tax. He should have, there- fore, filed his wealth-tax returns by 30th June, after the close of each accounting year. This he did not do. For assessment year 1958-59 a turn was originally filed on 4-11-1963. A…
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