1984 (11) TMI 46 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order refusing to reduce or waive the penalty imposed for late filing of wealth-tax returns.
2. Whether the returns filed by the petitioner were voluntary.
3. Maintainability of a single writ petition challenging penalties for multiple assessment years.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Order Refusing to Reduce or Waive the Penalty:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated December 30, 1974, by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, New Delhi, which refused to reduce or waive the penalty imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer for late filing of returns for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72. The Commissioner found that the returns were not filed voluntarily, as they were submitted after a survey by the Department on December 22, 1970, which revealed the petitioner's assets.

2. Whether the Returns Filed by the Petitioner Were Voluntary:
The Commissioner concluded that the returns were not voluntary because they were filed after the Department's survey operations. The petitioner argued that the returns were filed before any notice u/s 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act was issued. The court noted that the returns for the years 1965-66 to 1970-71 were filed without notice and that the petitioner made full disclosure of his net wealth, which was accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer. The court referenced various judgments, including Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. CWT and Madhukar Manilal Modi v. CWT, to support the argument that returns filed before the service of notice could be considered voluntary.

3. Maintainability of a Single Writ Petition:
The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner should have filed separate writ petitions for each assessment year. The court found this objection to be misconceived, noting that the petitioner had filed a single application u/s 18(2A) seeking waiver of penalties for multiple years. The court cited Madan Mohan v. District Excise and Taxation Officer, Bhatinda, to support the maintainability of a single petition when the grounds of challenge are similar.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner dated December 30, 1974, for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1970-71. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for a fresh decision on the application dated December 29, 1973, regarding these assessment years. No order as to costs was made.