9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty under section 18(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for non-compliance with notice under section 16(4) - Whether penalty valid based on default in 1978 - Whether penalty computation provisions applicable - Whether protective assessment justifies penalty imposition. Analysis: The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1974-75, challenging the penalty of Rs. 1,485 imposed under section 18(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The penalty was imposed due to non-compliance with the notice under section 16(4) served on the assessee in 1978. The WTO observed that the assessee failed to comply without reasonable cause, justifying the penalty imposition ranging from 1% to 100% of the assessed net wealth. The assessee contended that the penalty could not be imposed due to the circumstances, including serious illness and the assessment being protective. The assessee argued before the Appellate Tribunal that the penalty under section 18(1)(b) could not be imposed as the computation was not possible in the given circumstances. The Tribunal considered the submissions and emphasized that compliance with statutory requirements is essential, irrespective of the nature of the assessment. It was noted that even in the case of a protective assessment, the assessee must fulfill all obligations, and non-compliance cannot be excused. The Tribunal rejected the argument that penalty imposition was barred due to the protective nature of the assessment. Regarding the penalty computation, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 18(1)(b)(ii) applicable at the time of default in 1978. It was highlighted that the penalty computation requires a comparison between the net wealth as returned and as assessed. Since no return was filed, the tax on the net wealth as returned could not be computed, rendering the penalty computation provisions inapplicable. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed based on the law as it stood in 1974-75 was invalid as the default occurred in 1978 with different computation provisions. The Tribunal clarified that in a case like the present one, where no return was filed, the provisions of section 18(1)(a) for a separate default would have been applicable. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 18(1)(b) due to the inapplicability of penalty computation provisions at the time of default in 1978. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory obligations and the necessity to consider the relevant provisions in penalty imposition cases.
|
