9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Commissioner cannot cancel the penalty order made by the Wealth-tax Officer as well as levy penalty by making fresh orders of his own under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the phrase 'modification of an order (used in the show-cause notice under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, does not connote its cancellation and resurrection of fresh order in its place ?" The facts, shortly stated, are as under: The assessee, Swadesh Kumar, filed his return of we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the Revenue. He may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after holding such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass an order as in the circumstances of the case justifiable including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling it and directing a fresh decision. In this particular case, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax considered the orders of the Wealthtax Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and held that the Wealth-tax Officer has erred in dropping the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1969-70 solely on the ground that the penalty leviable under section 18(1)(a) of the Act was nominal. It was held that, for both the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal accepted the appeal and cancelled the penalty in its entirety for each year and restored the order of the Wealth-tax Officer for each of the years. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax sought reference and the Tribunal referred the three questions of law which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this order. The questions of law which have been referred to this court for its opinion are being returned unanswered because of the later developments which have been brought on record by the assessee by filing C. M. No, 5664/CIT of 1991. The assessee had placed on record a certified copy of the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jalandhar Division, under section 18B as annexure PX PY for the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to the year 1969-70 as the Wealthtax Officer had already waived the penalty for the said assessment year. Annexures PX and PY on this record (which we understand have become final) are the copies of the applications filed by the assessee and orders passed thereon by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Since the penalty levied under section 18(1)(a) of the Act for late filing of return has been ordered to be waived, the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under section 25(2) of the Act on January 16, 1979, for the relevant assessment years which gives rise to the questions of law referred to this court for opinion is rendered infructuous and cannot be said to be in operation. The questions of law referred to this court are, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
