9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "every month" in section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the term "every month" in section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, was required to file a wealth tax return by August 15, 1973, but it was received by the Wealth-tax Officer on September 15, 1973, leading to a penalty imposition by the officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalty, considering a complete month had passed. The Tribunal referred two questions for decision: whether there was a delay of one month in filing the return and whether the penalty was rightfully confirmed. The court considered arguments from both sides, focusing on the definition of "month" in the General Clauses Act, which refers to a month according to the Gregorian calendar unless context dictates otherwise. The court analyzed previous judgments, including CIT v. Khadri Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd. and CIT v. Brijlal Lohia, which emphasized interpreting "month" as per the English calendar month. It disagreed with the view in CIT v. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills, which suggested a month as a period of thirty days for penalty purposes. The court held that the term "month" in section 18(1)(i) should align with the English calendar month, as defined in the General Clauses Act. Consequently, as the return was received within a month, not after a completed month, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified. In conclusion, the court answered both questions in favor of the assessee, ruling that there was no delay of one month in filing the return and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed under section 18(1)(i) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the significance of interpreting legal terms in line with established definitions and context, ensuring fair application of penalties in taxation matters.
|
