1991 (8) TMI 52 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the right of appeal against the order of the Wealth-tax Officer following a Commissioner's order under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment delivered by S. S. SODHI J. addresses the controversy surrounding the right of appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The case involved an assessee who had delayed filing wealth-tax returns for assessment years 1969-70 to 1973-74, leading to penalty proceedings initiated by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee applied to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 18B for waiver of the imposed penalty. The Commissioner's order reduced the penalty to the amount of wealth-tax demand raised by the Officer for the relevant assessment years.

The issue arose when the Wealth-tax Officer, following the Commissioner's order under section 18B, levied penalties for the mentioned assessment years based on the Commissioner's directions. The question of appealability of the Officer's penalty order was raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The primary contention revolved around whether the Commissioner's order under section 18B extinguished the right of appeal against the Officer's penalty order under section 18(1)(a) of the Act.

The High Court referred to conflicting views on this matter, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in CWT v. B. Kempanna and the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling in Amrik Singh v. CWT. While the former held that the right of appeal against the Officer's penalty order remains intact despite the Commissioner's decision under section 18B, the latter concluded that the Officer's order following the Commissioner's directive is not appealable. The court acknowledged its binding precedent in Amrik Singh and concurred with its interpretation.

Consequently, the court answered both referred questions in the negative, favoring the Revenue and denying the appeal rights to the assessee. The judgment emphasized adherence to judicial precedent and upheld the view that the Officer's order post-Commissioner's decision under section 18B is not subject to appeal. The reference was disposed of without costs.