9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent assessment years belatedly. Since the facts are similar in both the writ petitions, these petitions are being decided by this common order. The facts arising from C.W.P. No. 3804 of 1983 filed by Jagjiwan Kumar shall be discussed hereinafter. While making the assessments for different years under the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer noticed that the returns of net wealth had been filed after the expiry of the due date and he, therefore, initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty for late filing of returns under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The petitioner took the plea that there were reasonable and sufficient grounds for the waiver of penalty and he, therefore, filed applications for all the years in which penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of the second petitioner, Padam Sain, returns were filed for the aforesaid assessment years on the same dates on which Jagjiwan Kumar had filed his returns except that for the two assessment years, namely, for 1978-79 and 1979-80, returns were filed on January 15, 1980. In the case of Padam Sain, no penalty was imposed for the late filing of the return for the assessment year 1976-77 but penalty was levied for the assessment year 1981-82, which was reduced to Rs. 100 by the Commissioner. Penalty under section 18(1)(a) is imposable if an assessee has failed to furnish the return which he is required to furnish under section 14(1) or after notice giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner regarding waiver of penalty. It is further pointed out by Shri Nagpal that the assessee had co-operated during the course of enquiry relating to all the assessment years and had also paid the tax due. No proceedings were also initiated for concealment of wealth under section 18(1)(c) of the Act. In these circumstances, the petitioners should have been given the benefit of waiver of penalty in all the years. A similar question had arisen before this High Court in Smt. Parkash Devi v. CWT [1983] 141 ITR 122. It was held that five conditions are required to be fulfilled to get the benefit of waiver of penalty under section 18B of the Act. These conditions are as under : (1) that the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified in section 18B of the Act. If they had not fulfilled one or two of the five conditions, that would have been a case for reduction of penalty rather than its complete waiver. Once they are found to have fulfilled all the conditions, then there was no justification to refuse the waiver. In Dr. Brij Mohan Bhargava v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 300 (P H), a question about the reduction of penalty again came to be examined by this High Court, though that was a case of waiver under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was held by the learned single judge that section 273A gave discretion to the Commissioner to give relief or not to give relief at all or to give only partial relief. In the case of the petitioners, no notice had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
