Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 661 1999 SLD 661 1999 PTD 1723 (1998) 234 ITR 649
Allahabad High Court
Wealth Tax Reference No. 197 of 1981, decision dated: 7-08-1997
OM PRAKASH AND S. C. VERMA, JJ
Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

VS

BABU RAM GUPTA (LATE)

Law: Wealth Tax Act, 1957

Section: 27(3),18(1)(a),14(2)

Wealth tax--- ---- Penalty---Delay in filing returns---Rate of penalty---Delay in filing returns is a continuing offence---Wealth tax return due on June 30, 1964, filed on November 23, 1972---Penalty to be imposed under S.18(1)(a) on rates prevailing before and after its amendment by Indian Finance Act, 1969, with effect from 1-4-1969---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.18. The imposition of penalty is not to be confined to the first default but must be with reference to the continuing default on the footing that non ­compliance with the obligation of making a return was an infraction as long as the default continued. For the assessment year 1964-65, the wealth tax return had become due on June 30, 1964, from the assessee, but it came to be filed on November 23, 1972. Amendment in section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, came to be made on March 31, 1969, and the effect of that amendment was that with effect from April 1, 1969, the rate of penalty was enhanced. The Wealth Tax Officer treated the default on the part of the assessee as a continuous default and he levied penalty up to March 31, 1969, under the un amended law and with effect from April 1, 1969, penalty was imposed under the amended law. On appeal, the view of the Wealth Tax Officer was upheld. However, the Tribunal held that the relevant date for purposes of imposition of penalty was the date when the return was due. On a reference: Held, that the default of not filing the return being a continuing default, penalty had to be levied on the rates as prevailing before the amendment and after amendment in section 18(1)(a) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 1969, with effect from April 1, 1969. Maya Rani Punj v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 330 (SC) and CWT v. Banerjee (P.N.) (1991) 192 ITR 399 (SC) fol. JUDGMENT Notice by registered post was sent to the assessee on August 6, 1991. None appears for the assessee and we have, therefore, heard only the standing counsel. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal, as directed by this Court, under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, referred the following question for opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,…
🔒
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