9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -B. The assessment were completed on the basis of these returns after the death on 1st April, 1976 the penalty proceedings were also initiated after completion of the assessment. On behalf of the legal heir, initiations of proceedings under s. 15-B were objected in view of the fact that the legal heir should not be saddled with the penalty for any default committed by the deceased. The WTO rejected the contention and imposed the penalties. As the assessment was completed after 1st April, 1976, the penalties were imposed on the rate stipulated 1st April 1976 (i.e.2% p.m. with out 50% as maximum limit.). 2. Before the learned AAC the assessee's counsel contended that levy of penalties on a legal heir are illegal and, in any case, the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel vehemently argued that no penalty can be imposed under s. 15-B on a legal heir. He cited the decisions of SMT YAWARUNNISSA BEGUM vs. WTO (1975) 100 ITR 645 (AP) : RAMESHWAR PRASAD vs. CWT (1980) 17 CTR (ALL) 71 (1980) 124 ITR 77 (All) and CWT vs. ABDUL MAZIDKHAN (1984) 147 ITR 153 (MP). 5. We have considered the rival submissions We find that s. 19(3) of the WT Act, reads as under: "The provisions of s. 14, 15 and 17 shall apply to an executor, administrator or other legal representative as they apply to any person referred to in those sections." The above section therefore, already restricts application of section of the WT Act on a legal representative. This sub section does not include s. 15-B enable the authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings is initiated after the completion of the assessment, law ruling on the date of assessment should be applied for the penalty. But the same is subject to condition. Any amendment enhancing the penalties for the default committed prior to the amendment is not permissible. The Supreme Court in this matter has given clear mandat in K. SATWANT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB (1960) 2 SCR 89. Their Lord ships in the case of MAYA RANI PUNJ have discussed this matter. Their Lordships found that the amendment did not enhance the quantum of penalty to be inflicted on commission of offence made before the amendment. On that basis, their Lordships had upheld the amendment as constitutional. In the present case before us, the situation is different. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
