9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the Amnesty Scheme under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and its impact on penalties for non-voluntary wealth disclosures. Detailed Analysis: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed a case involving penalties under sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The primary issue was whether the Amnesty Scheme in force until March 31, 1986, suspended the provisions of the Act, leading to a promissory estoppel against the statute. The court considered the voluntary nature of wealth disclosures and the applicability of penalties based on the timing of filing returns. The assessee, an individual, had filed returns of wealth for assessment years 1977-78 to 1981-82 within the Amnesty Scheme period. The Wealth-tax Officer imposed penalties citing non-voluntary disclosures despite the returns being filed before the scheme's expiry and tax payment made timely. The court highlighted that the objective of Amnesty Schemes is to encourage voluntary disclosures without fear of penalties. Key factors included full and true disclosure, tax payment before the scheme's end, and cooperation during assessment inquiries. The Department argued that issuing a notice under section 17 of the Act during the scheme period affected the assessee's eligibility for penalty immunity. However, the court noted the lack of evidence showing non-voluntary disclosure or lack of good faith in the assessee's actions. Referring to legal precedents like Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Hassomal, the court emphasized the importance of honoring voluntary disclosures made in anticipation of scheme benefits. Consequently, the court held that the assessee's wealth disclosures were voluntary, entitling her to immunity from penalties. The court differentiated the issues into two parts for clarity: (a) regarding the impact of the Amnesty Scheme on the Wealth-tax Act provisions and promissory estoppel, and (b) the voluntary nature of wealth disclosures affecting penalty liability. The court ruled in favor of the Department for part (a) and in favor of the assessee for part (b), affirming the voluntary nature of the disclosures. The judgment concluded without cost orders, but with fixed counsel fees and directions to forward the order to the Tribunal for further necessary actions.
|
