1976 (10) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Competency of appeals filed by the accountable person against the levy of penalty under the Estate Duty Act.
- Interpretation of the proviso to section 62(1) of the Act regarding the payment of duty before filing an appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved the determination of the competency of appeals filed by the accountable person against the penalty imposed under the Estate Duty Act. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty had imposed penalties of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000 for non-payment of the estate duty. The accountable person filed appeals against these penalties, which were dismissed by the Appellate Controller for not meeting the requirements of the proviso to section 62(1) of the Act, which states that no appeal shall lie unless the duty has been paid before filing the appeal.

The accountable person then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the appeals were competent and directed them to be restored for consideration on their merits. The Tribunal's decision was based on the modification of the duty amount by the Assistant Controller himself in an order dated January 30, 1969. The duty originally demanded was reduced to Rs. 41,650.49, and the duty referable to another sum was kept in abeyance pending appeal. This modification affected the basis on which the penalties were imposed.

The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the duty amount had been altered by the Assistant Controller before the appeals were disposed of. The Court noted that the Appellate Controller had the power to excuse the delay in filing an appeal and would not have dismissed the appeals if the modified duty amount was considered. The Court also highlighted that the accountable person had paid the first instalment of the altered duty amount before the second appeal was filed, making the second appeal competent.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the accountable person. The Court found that the modified duty amount and payment of the first instalment before the second appeal demonstrated the competency of the appeals. As the accountable person was not represented, no costs were awarded.