9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether penalty under section 18(1)(a) could be imposed on a legal heir in view of the specific omission of sections 18 and 16 from section 19(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. Whether penalty was imposable in the absence of mens rea and given that the returns were filed in good faith by the legal representative. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty on Legal Heir The primary question was whether a penalty for default under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 could be imposed on a legal heir or a legal representative. The Tribunal concluded that section 19A was applicable to the case as the deceased, Keshav Ram Narang, died before the valuation date relevant to the assessment year 1969-70. The Tribunal held that section 19A and section 19 were distinct and enacted for different purposes. The Tribunal also opined that section 19(3) implicitly included section 18, thereby allowing penalty proceedings against legal representatives. However, the court disagreed with the Tribunal's findings. The court examined the scope and object of sections 19 and 19A. Section 19(1) applies when wealth-tax has been assessed and becomes payable due to an assessment order. It does not apply if no assessment was made before the deceased's death. The court cited previous judgments, including Rameshwar Prasad v. CWT [1980] 124 ITR 77 and A. & F. Harvey Ltd. v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 326, which supported this view. Section 19A, on the other hand, applies to cases where an assessee dies having executed a will and appointed an executor. The court found that since Keshav Ram Narang died intestate and no will was executed, section 19A could not be applied. The court further held that section 19(3) does not include section 18, and thus, penalty proceedings could not be initiated against a legal representative. The court referenced its earlier decision in Rameshwar Prasad's case, which established that penalty proceedings under section 18 cannot be initiated or continued against a legal representative. The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the case was governed by section 19A and that section 19(3) included section 18. Issue 2: Absence of Mens Rea and Good Faith Filing The second issue was whether penalty was imposable given the absence of mens rea and the fact that the returns were filed in good faith by the legal representative. The court noted that this was a factual question but did not press this view due to the Tribunal's reference. However, in light of the court's decision on the first issue that the Wealth-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings against the legal representative, this question became irrelevant. The court stated that this question would only be relevant if the Wealth-tax Officer had the authority to initiate penalty proceedings. Conclusion: The court decided in favor of the assessee on the first question, ruling that penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) could not be initiated against a legal representative as section 18 is not included in section 19(3). Consequently, the second question became infructuous and was returned unanswered. The court directed the Appellate Tribunal to delete the penalty in its entirety and awarded costs to the assessee, assessed at Rs. 200.
|
