9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessment years. From a perusal of the records I find the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 44,800 for the assessment year 1970-71, Rs. 4,961 for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 5,230 for the assessment year 1977-78. The case, in short, is that admittedly the petitioner filed returns beyond the stipulated time under the statute. So while passing the assessment orders the concerned officer imposed the aforesaid amounts of penalty. Against the aforesaid order an application under section 18B(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act was made. The ground taken in the application by the assessee/petitioner was that before issuance of notice under section 14(2) of the aforesaid Act he voluntarily and in good faith made full and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween tax, penalty and interest and other reasons of non-disclosure of value of jewellery and ornaments in the return of wealth is wholly factually incorrect and the same will appear from the return filed by the writ petitioner annexed to the writ petition. The other reasons as to non-disclosure of appreciated value of the immovable property in the earlier years as determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are not factually correct as it has been done in the returns. He contends that the law enjoins that the disclosure is to be made by the petitioner according to his own estimate and this valuation and not that which might be arrived at by the Assessing Officer, is to be reckoned for disclosure. In this connection, he relies on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner did not satisfy the Commissioner as required under the aforesaid section. Mr. Som relies on a decision on the question of exercise of power under this section reported in N. Ramachandran v. CWT [1988] 170 ITR 447 (Ker). Having heard the learned advocates for the parties in a case like this the power of the writ court is very limited, as it has been settled law by various judgments one of which I find is the judgment cited by Mr. Som reported in N. Ramachandran v. CWT [1988] 170 ITR 447 (Ker). I have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer. I find the grounds of imposing of penalty has been mentioned in all the three assessment years for not furnishing returns within the stipulated time as provided in the statute. So the writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of any asset or debt in respect of which the penalty is imposable, voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of such particulars, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him. (5) Every order made under this section shall be final and shall not be called into question by any court or any other authority." It will appear from the aforesaid section that the Commissioner is to decide the question of waiver of penalty. From the impugned order I find that the Commissioner did not apply his mind from the beginning as from the records it will appear that the application under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act was filed for waiver of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the said Act for late filing of the returns of wealth. The aforesaid section does not envisage waiver of interest. Even if it is assumed that this is an accidental slip or mistake on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Motors Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 450. So, the reasons given by the Commissioner are patently absurd for the aforesaid assessment year. As far as the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 are concerned the Commissioner has proceeded absolutely on the wrong footing. He did not make any endeavour to see as to whether the petitioner filed returns before issuance of notice under section 14(2) of the aforesaid Act or not. He has proceeded on the basis that demand of payment of penalty remained outstanding. So this is a factor for which discretion could not be exercised.He has also come to the finding that the petitioner has not made true disclosures in respect of the value of the movable property. This reason is absolutely irrelevant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
