1981 (2) TMI 71 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of wealth-tax on agricultural lands, imposition of penalty for belated filing of returns, interpretation of Section 18B of the Wealth Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a wealth-tax assessee, was assessed for the first time in 1970-71 with wealth in the form of agricultural lands. The petitioner voluntarily filed returns for 1970-71 and 1971-72, but the valuation was disputed by the WTO. Penalty proceedings were initiated for belated filing of returns under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner explained the delay due to the challenge on including agricultural lands in the Act, but the penalty was imposed by the WTO. The Commissioner partially reduced the penalty, leading the petitioner to move the High Court under Article 226 for relief.

The main contention was that the Commissioner did not apply the special powers under Section 18B correctly. The Commissioner found the petitioner had reasonable cause for the delay but rejected the explanation based on the assumption of filing returns without printed forms. The Court clarified that Section 18B confers a special power on the Commissioner, distinct from revisional or appellate powers. The judgment in Shankara Apaya Swami's case emphasized that the Commissioner must consider factors like full disclosure of wealth and cooperation with the department, not the reasonableness of the delay, while exercising discretion under Section 18B.

The Court highlighted that the Commissioner's focus on the reasonableness of the cause for delay was incorrect. The decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider under Section 18B, considering the factors outlined in previous judgments. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner should not assess the reasonableness of the cause explained by the assessee but focus on the factors required for granting relief under Section 18B.

The judgment referenced previous cases where the interpretation of Section 18B was clarified, emphasizing the discretionary power of the Commissioner and the factors to be considered while reducing or waiving penalties. The Court directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter in line with the principles outlined in the judgment.