2004 (11) TMI 86 - HC - Wealth-tax

Appeal competency - Whether, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant CIT was competent to decide the appeal on the merits, and consequently in giving a finding that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the wealth-tax return; ignoring the vital fact that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had passed an order under the provisions of section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, declining to waive the penalty, and the Wealth-tax Officer s earlier order levying penalty got merged with the Commissioner of Wealth-tax order and became final in view of the specific provisions of section 18B(5) of the Wealth-tax Act? - We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under sections 18B and 23 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding penalty imposition and appeal rights.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the competence of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide an appeal on the merits and the validity of the delay in filing the wealth-tax return. The respondent-assessee filed a petition seeking waiver of penalty under section 18B of the Act, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Despite this, the respondent appealed the penalty order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who partly allowed the appeals. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the right of appeal of the assessee is not affected by filing a waiver petition under section 18B. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 18B and section 23, emphasizing that they operate in separate fields, with the Commissioner's power under section 18B limited to reducing or waiving penalties without delving into the merits of the penalty imposition. The Court cited various High Court judgments supporting the view that the penalty order does not merge with the Commissioner's order under section 18B, allowing the appeal to be maintainable.

The High Court further discussed decisions from different High Courts, including the Madras, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, which upheld the right of appeal against penalty orders despite the Commissioner's decision under section 18B. The Court highlighted that the Commissioner's powers under section 18B do not overlap with the appellate or revisional powers, ensuring that the appeal process remains intact. The judgment also addressed a dissenting view from the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing that the provisions of sections 18B and 23 of the Act operate in distinct spheres, and the right of appeal against penalty orders is not affected by seeking waiver under section 18B.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, affirming the competence of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits despite the Commissioner's order under section 18B. The Court reiterated that the provisions of section 18B and section 23 operate separately, allowing the appeal against penalty orders to be maintained.