2004 (8) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion had duly been filed and that the reply to the show-cause notice had also been filed. These have not been taken into account by the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty. In view of this factual position, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was clearly not sustainable - - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), were initiated and a show-cause notice was issued. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated March 27, 1981, levied a penalty of Rs. 16,140 on the ground that despite specific opportunities granted to the assessee, no reply to the show-cause notice was filed nor did any one attend the proceedings before him on the date fixed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by him was tantamount to denial of a proper opportunity of being heard and thus the order of penalty was not sustainable. These findings have been upheld by the Tribunal on further appeal by the Revenue. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. He has not been able to controvert the factual position that the application for extension had duly been filed and that the reply to the show-cau .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X