2014 (1) TMI 461 - HC - Wealth-tax

Jurisdiction under Section 18-B - Imposition of penalty - Deposit of wealth tax after due date - Held that - A perusal of Section 18B of the 1957 Act would reveal that it commences with a non-obstante clause thereby indicating that while considering a prayer for reduction/waiver of penalty, a Commissioner shall consider such factors as are enumerated in Section 18-B of the 1957 Act and no other factor. A perusal of the impugned order, reveals that factors enumerated in Section 18-B of the 1957 Act have not been considered - Therefore, matter is remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order declining jurisdiction under Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala, which declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner filed wealth tax returns for assessment years 1977 to 1985 collectively and voluntarily without any notice from the Department. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty, which the petitioner accepted but filed an application under Section 18-B seeking a reduction or waiver of the penalty. The Commissioner rejected the application without considering the factors set out for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 18-B. The petitioner argued that the entire wealth tax was paid at the time of filing the return, while the respondent contended that the petitioner did not deserve a reduction or waiver of penalty as the tax was deposited after the due date.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the impugned order, the Court found that the Commissioner had erred in dismissing the application under Section 18-B. Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act empowers the Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties based on specific parameters outlined in the Act. The Court noted that the Commissioner failed to consider the factors enumerated in Section 18-B while dismissing the application. The Court highlighted that the impugned order did not provide valid reasons based on Section 18-B for rejecting the petitioner's request.

The Court observed that Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act begins with a non-obstante clause, indicating that the Commissioner must only consider the factors specified in the Act when deciding on penalty reduction or waiver requests. Since the impugned order did not adhere to the factors outlined in Section 18-B, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order, and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala for a fresh decision in compliance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on a specified date for further proceedings.