1990 (3) TMI 38 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Legality of confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding penalty imposition.
3. Application of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a specific case.
4. Consideration of default under section 18(1)(a) as a continuing default for penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh pertains to two Miscellaneous Civil Cases involving the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and an individual assessee. The Commissioner filed applications seeking directions to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The issues raised included the legality of confirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order on penalty imposition, the application of a Supreme Court decision, and the consideration of default as a continuing default for penalty calculation.

The facts leading to the applications involve the individual assessee filing wealth-tax returns late for multiple assessment years. The Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) and imposed penalties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed computation of penalties at 2% of the assessed tax for each month of default. Subsequent appeals by the Department to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed, leading to the application seeking reference to the High Court on legal questions.

In its judgment, the High Court noted that a previous decision involving the same parties had held that the Tribunal's view did not require interference. The Tribunal had based its decision on a Supreme Court case, concluding that the legal questions raised by the Department had been settled by the Supreme Court precedent. The High Court had also previously followed the same Supreme Court decision in a similar case. Therefore, the High Court found no grounds for admitting the applications for final hearing and dismissed the Revenue's applications, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasized the precedence set by the Supreme Court's decision and the consistent application of that decision in previous cases. The dismissal of the applications underscored the settled nature of the legal questions raised and the lack of grounds for further review.