9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Right of an assessee to file an appeal under section 23 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 after making an application for waiver of penalty under section 18B of the Act. Analysis: The case involved a situation where the assessee filed a return of wealth after the due date, claiming exemption under a specific section of the Act. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) imposed a penalty which was partially reduced by the Commissioner upon the assessee's application for waiver. The assessee then appealed the penalty order, arguing the same points as before. However, a preliminary point was raised whether the assessee could file an appeal after applying for penalty waiver, citing previous court decisions. The Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar income tax case was discussed, emphasizing the importance of admitting liability for penalty when seeking waiver. The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision was also referenced, stating that filing a waiver application does not waive the right to appeal against the penalty. The conflict between judicial precedents and legal principles regarding the necessity of a provision for depriving a right was highlighted. The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision favored the assessee, affirming the right to appeal even after applying for penalty waiver. On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court's observations emphasized the distinction between challenging a penalty in an appeal and seeking waiver under a specific provision. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Gujarat High Court's view, stating that the right to appeal is not available when the assessee admits liability for the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that seeking waiver implies seeking mercy and pardon, making it untenable to deny liability for the penalty. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal, concluding that since the assessee admitted liability for the penalty by seeking waiver, the right to appeal did not exist. The Tribunal's decision was based on the concept of seeking clemency and mercy through a waiver application, which precluded the denial of liability in an appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the appeal, as the fundamental issue of liability admission through the waiver application rendered the appeal invalid.
|
