9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in respect of the Wealth-tax assessment for the year 1975-76. The valuation date was March 31, 1975. The accused has been assessed to wealth-tax from the assessment year 1969-70 onwards. For the assessment year 1975-76, the return of wealth under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act was due on July 31, 1975. The accused failed to file his return of wealth in due time. Notice was issued under section 17A of the Wealth-tax Act on March 20, 1982, calling upon the accused to file the return of wealth within 35 days of the service of notice. Notice was served on March 24, 1982. Despite notice, the accused failed to file the return of wealth. Notices under section 16(4) of the Wealth-tax Act were issued on August 31, 1982, and September 2, 1982 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19,300, respectively. On the ground of wilful failure, the accused is liable to be punished under section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Mr. R. V. Easwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that there was no wilful failure in submitting the return of wealth and hence section 35B of the Act which provides for punishment for "wilful failure" is not attracted. The second contention was that, regarding initiation of prosecution, there were instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Officers in paragraph 4 of Volume II of the Board's Instruction to the Departmental Officers F. No. 285/20/82 II. Inv., dated February 19, 1986, whereunder prosecution should not be launched unless the amount involved excee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only at the time of the trial and not now. Regarding the second contention, the instructions relied upon by the petitioner are extracted in Ground No. C in the petitions which read as follows : "As per existing instructions, prosecution would not be launched unless the amount involved exceeded Rs. 10,000. The aim of the Department should be to process only the case of big concealment and not fritter away its energy in petty cases of no consequence." (emphasis supplied). The language of this instruction is quite clear and unambiguous, Only if the amount involved is less than Rs. 10,000, prosecution should not be launched. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner does not find support from the language of the instructions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
