9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Amnesty Scheme did not suspend the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and as such there was no promissory estoppel against the statute and the returns of wealth filed by the assessee were not voluntary and, therefore, the assessee was liable to the penalties under sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? " Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is assessed as an individual. The years of assessment are 1977-78 to 1980-81 for penalties under section 18(1)(c) of the Act and 1977-78 to 1981-82 for penalties under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee was served with a notice under section 17 of the Act requiring her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid question of law for our opinion. We have heard Shri Nazir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant assessee, and Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-applicant-Department. The following points are not in dispute-- (a) The Amnesty Scheme was in force till March 31, 1986 ; (b) The returns were filed before the expiry of this period ; (c) The assessee paid the tax as found due before the expiry of this scheme ; (d) The notice under section 17 of the Act was issued during the currency of the scheme ; (e) Penalties were imposed on the ground of concealment and late filing of the returns. It is not disputed before us that the assessee had the right to obtain the benefit of protective umbrella of the Amnesty Scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the returns of wealth filed by the assessee were not voluntary and, as such, the assessee was liable to the penalties. Ex consequenti, we hold that the returns were liable to be treated as voluntary and the assessee was entitled to be given immunity from penalties. We, therefore, bifurcate the question as under : " (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Amnesty Scheme did not suspend the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and as such there was no promissory estoppel against the statute ? and (b) The returns of wealth filed by the assessee were not voluntary and, therefore, the assessee was liable to the penalties under sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
