9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Calculation of penalty under section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. Legality of the penalty order under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. 3. Validity of service of notice under section 41 of the Wealth-tax Act, read with Order 5, rule 15 of the CPC. 4. Computation of the period of default for penalty purposes. 5. Requirement of previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax for the assessment year 1964-65. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Calculation of Penalty The Tribunal held that the calculation of the penalty should be in accordance with section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as amended from time to time, considering the default as continuing. However, the court referred to the majority judgment in T. K. Roy v. CWT, which stated that the infringement of law is complete on the date of failure to file a return under section 14(1) and is not a continuing offence. The quantum of penalty must be determined based on the law prevailing on the default date. Thus, the court answered the question in the negative and against the department. Issue 2: Legality of the Penalty Order The Tribunal upheld the penalty, rejecting the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing returns. The court noted that the Tribunal's finding was influenced by the consideration of the service of notice on the assessee's husband, which was invalid. The court held that the finding was vitiated due to the use of inadmissible material. It was emphasized that mens rea is required for imposing a penalty under section 18(1)(a), and the department must establish that the assessee acted in conscious disregard of the law. The court answered the question in the negative and against the department. Issue 3: Validity of Service of Notice The Tribunal considered the service of notices on the assessee's husband as valid. However, the court held that the service was not legal and valid under Order 5, rule 15 of the CPC, as amended for Assam. The court stated that both conditions for valid service under the amended rule were not satisfied. Therefore, the service on the husband did not constitute valid service on the assessee. The court answered the question in the negative and against the department. Issue 4: Computation of the Period of Default The assessing authority calculated the penalty from the date fixed for submission of the return under section 14(1) of the Act. The court rejected the assessee's contention that the penalty should be calculated from the date given in the notice under section 14(2). The court held that the default starts from the date when the return ought to have been filed under section 14(1) and continues until the return is filed or the assessment is made. The court answered the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. Issue 5: Requirement of Previous Approval The court noted that this question was neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., the court held that it could not answer a question that did not arise out of the Tribunal's order. The court declined to answer this question. Conclusion: Questions 1, 2, and 3 were answered in the negative and against the department. Question 4 was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The court declined to answer question 5.
|
