Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1973 (7) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... VINDA BHAT., K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by GOVINDA BHAT C. J.- This is a batch of five writ petitions preferred by a common assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called "the Act". The writ petitions relate to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. The petitioner did not file his returns on the due dates, but he filed the same on 16th December, 1969, pursuant to notices issued to him under section 17(2) in respect of the first four assessment years and under section 14(2) for the assessment year 1968-69. His returns were accepted and he was assessed to tax ranging from Rs. 469 to Rs. 637. The net wealth assessed by the petitioner (sic). The petitioner preferred revision peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner has approached this court for relief under article 226 of the Constitution. The Commissioner refused to gain relief under section 18(2A) of the Act on the ground that the Commissioner's power under the said sub-section has to be invoked by the assessee before the penalties were levied and not after the penalties were levied. This view of the law taken by the Commissioner is clearly erroneous. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the department, Sri S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, that the power under the sub-section could be invoked either before or after the imposition of penalty. Though the view taken by the Commissioner with regard to his power under section 18(2A) is plainly erroneous, it is unnecessary to direct the Commis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the manner required by sub-section (1) of section 14 or by such notice, as the case may be; or......... he may by order in writing, direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty.........." It is clear from a perusal of the above provision that the Wealth-tax Officer has to satisfy himself that the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return which he is required to furnish under the Act. It means that the department must decide that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing the return within the time. While considering the nature of the penalty under the Orissa Staes Tax Act, the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa has stated thus: "....... the liability to pay penalty doe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded on behalf of the assessee. He argues that the return for wealth-tax for all the years 1964-65 to 1968-69 were filed on December 16, 1969. The delay in filing the returns of wealth for all the years, it is claimed, was due to the fact that the assessee honestly felt that he was not liable to pay wealth-tax. It is urged that his liability to wealth-tax primarily arose as the properties owned by the assessee were valued at 20 times the net rental income instead of at the market value. In support of this claim, Shri Raghavendra Rao points out that the assessee had appointed an approved valuer to value the Bombay property of the assessee. The value of this property for each of the wealth-tax assessment years was determined by the approved va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct of the years commencing from 1964-65. It is also relevant to state that the net wealth assessed in the instant case ranges around rupees two lakhs, and the tax assessed, as stated earlier, ranges from Rs. 469 to Rs. 637. Having regard to the circumstances, it is for the Commissioner to decide whether the petitioner has failed to submit the returns without sufficient cause in the light of the statement of law made by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd.'s case. The order of the Commissioner is vitiated by his failure to consider the circumstances urged by the petitioner for his failure to submit his returns under the Act and, therefore, cannot be supported. In the result, for the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates