9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of Rs. 11,125 for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs. 5,370 for the assessment year 1971-72 imposed under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act ?" It is evident from the aforesaid question that the dispute was in respect of two assessment years. Hence, two assessment orders were passed by the Wealth-tax Officer followed by two judgments in the appeal. On reference having been made, the Bench which heard the same reframed the questions which are as under : " (1) (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the successor-officer was under an obligation to give notice under section 39 of the Act to the assessee before continuing and concluding the proceedings concerned ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, there was no need to issue a fresh notice. In the result, he imposed penalties in the sums of Rs. 11,125 and Rs. 5,370 for the two years. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant. Commissioner who allowed the same on the finding that since he was not given, an opportunity to which he was entitled, the order imposing penalty passed by the Wealth -tax Officer was bad in law. Aggrieved, the Department took the matter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal which was rejected and the orders of the Wealth-tax Officer were set aside. Consequently, upon the setting aside of the orders by the Tribunal, the Department preferred an application for referring the question mentioned above, which was allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as the applicant had earlier defaulted and had not appeared in pursuance of the notice which had been served on him, he was, neither in law nor in equity, entitled to a second notice. We are unable to uphold this contention. It is not default on the part of the assessee which is conclusive or determinative of the controversy. The question is whether the assessee should have been served with a second notice in view of the fact that there has been a long gap in between the first and the second dates of hearing. The assessee could not be expected to go to the office every day and find out the date of hearing of the penalty proceedings. It was for the Department to have served the assessee with the notice when the next date had been fixed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
