1984 (2) TMI 154 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c) for assessment year 1973-74.
2. Penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) for assessment year 1974-75.
3. Appealability of penalty orders post-Commissioner's order under section 18B.

Analysis:
1. In the case of penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c) for the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee filed a wealth-tax return showing a negative net wealth initially, which was later revised. The WTO imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,50,000, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs. 30,000 under section 18B(1)/18B(4) in a consolidated order. The assessee appealed against this order before the Tribunal, arguing that the appeal was maintainable despite the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal addressed the appealability issue by referencing a Karnataka High Court decision and highlighted the non-obstante clause in the amended section 18B, emphasizing the finality of the Commissioner's order under this section.

2. Regarding penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) for the assessment year 1974-75, the WTO imposed a penalty due to a delayed filing of the wealth-tax return. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the penalty but directed a re-computation considering appellate orders and rectifying mistakes. The Commissioner later reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000 under section 18B(1)/18B(4). The assessee appealed before the Tribunal, arguing for the maintainability of the appeal post the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal analyzed the effect of the new section 18B and highlighted the finality of the Commissioner's order under this section, emphasizing the limitations on further appeals against penalties reduced or waived by the Commissioner.

3. The Tribunal delved into the issue of appealability of penalty orders after the Commissioner's decision under section 18B. It discussed the potential confusion if the Tribunal upholds the original penalty while the Commissioner has reduced it, emphasizing the need for clarity and finality in penalty orders. The Tribunal referenced judgments from the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat to support the view that once the Commissioner exercises power under section 18B, the order becomes final and not subject to further appeal. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals of the assessee were not maintainable due to the finality of the Commissioner's orders under section 18B, dismissing the appeals without considering their merits.