9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to prosecution under section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for assessment year 1980-81. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, a widow aged 62, challenged her prosecution under section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1980-81. Allegations included a delay in filing the wealth tax return, resulting in a penalty imposition. The petitioner contended that she was never advised about wealth tax liability and had paid the tax and penalties after engaging an advocate upon receiving a notice. The petitioner argued that there was no wilful failure in filing returns for the relevant years and that the prosecution was launched without proper notice or opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the notices received under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, pointing out that the notices did not comply with the statutory provisions, specifically the requirement of a notice period not less than thirty days. The petitioner relied on legal precedents such as Shree Singhvi Bros. v. Union of India and S. Harnam Singh Suri v. CBDT to emphasize the importance of providing an opportunity for a hearing before launching a prosecution. The petitioner's counsel also referenced CWT v. J. K. Srivastava and Sons to support the argument regarding the necessity of a valid notice. In response, the respondents cited Sant Parkash v. CIT to differentiate the present case, emphasizing the relatively lower amount of wealth tax involved compared to the undisclosed income in the referenced case. The respondents intended to prosecute the petitioner despite the assessment orders and tax payments, without fulfilling the conditions specified in section 17 of the Act. The court accepted the petitioner's arguments, noting the failure to provide a proper notice and opportunity for a hearing before prosecution. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint against the petitioner and all related proceedings. This decision also resolved Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4676-M and 4679 M of 1992.
|
