9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order is set aside - The petitioner having satisfied all the prerequisite conditions imposed by section 18B, Penalties levied are waived in entirety - - - - - Dated:- 1-8-2005 - Judge(s) : D. A. MEHTA., MS. H. N. DEVANI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.A. Mehta J.- This petition challenges the order under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"), passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Surat, on January 27, 1993 (exhibit "F"). The petitioner, one of the executors of the estate of the late Shri Dalichand V. Shroff, filed voluntary returns of wealth for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77 on various dates which appear in the Table set out hereunder. The petitioner paid wealth-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act; it was also submitted that the petitioner had co-operated in finalisation of the assessment of the net wealth and had paid the tax payable in consequence of the orders of assessment for all the four years under consideration. The petitioner also explained the circumstances in which the delay in submitting the returns of wealth had occurred. In so far as the four years under consideration are concerned, it is an admitted fact that penalties to the tune of Rs. 50,240, Rs. 35,200, Rs. 18,430 and Rs. 3,060 were imposed respectively for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The respondent has rejected the application vide his order dated January 27, 1993. Mr. M.J. Shah, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purposes of determining whether the penalty could be waived in entirety or was required to be reduced, subject to all other conditions being fulfilled. He, therefore, urged that the matter must go back to the respondent authority for being adjudicated afresh, if necessary, after laying down appropriate guidelines. A further contention was raised that the explanation tendered for filing the return belatedly, had not been accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer and in the circumstances, no waiver was liable to be granted. According to him, in the absence of any reasonable cause being pleaded, the order made by the respondent was justified and was required to be upheld. On July 16,1993, when the petition was admitted, the court had directed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full and true disclosure of his net wealth, and,... and also has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessment of his net wealth and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of the particulars of his assets or debts in any case where the excess of net wealth assessed over the net wealth returned is of such a nature as not to attract the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 18." The section requires that the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner having satisfied the prerequisite conditions for invoking the jurisdiction of the respondent authority, it was incumbent upon the respondent authority to exercise his discretion in a proper and reasonable manner. The only reason advanced by the respondent authority for rejecting the application moved by the petitioner is that the petitioner had not led any evidence to prove that the petitioner had paid interest charged and penalty levied/leviable or had made satisfactory arrangements for its payment. On a plain reading of section 18B of the Act, the requirement of payment of penalty leviable does not appear and hence the said reason is not germane to exercise of the discretion. Similarly, the observation that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the assessee approaches the Commissioner under section 273A, he does not dispute his liability to pay the penalty. All that he says is that he should be given the relief of reduction or waiver by the fact that the conditions specified in section 273A are satisfied." Therefore, in the light of what is stated hereinbefore, the impugned order dated January 27, 1993 (exhibit F), made by the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. Penalties levied at Rs. 50,240, Rs. 35,200, Rs. 18,430 and Rs. 3,060, respectively, for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 are waived in entirety, the petitioner having satisfied all the prerequisite conditions imposed by section 18B of the Act. The petition is accordingly allowed. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
