1988 (6) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 1957. The following are the two questions referred : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that although the show-cause notices under section 18(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, were issued for noncompliance with the provisions of the notices under section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, penalty orders imposing penalties for the defa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the three years were submitted by the assessee on May 18, 1970, beyond the due dates. The Wealth-tax Officer imposed penalties of Rs. 14,505, Rs. 15,082, and Rs. 14,840, respectively. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of WeAlth-tax, Jorhat Range, on appeal, confirmed the decision and directed that the amount of penalties be modified. The Appellate Tribunal, on further appeal, held : "As a m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oes not "subsist" for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69. The issue, however, subsists for the assessment year 1967-68 and requires to be answered. We have today answered a like question in Wealth-tax Reference Case No. 8 of 1975 (T. K. Baruah v. CWT [1989] 176 ITR 287 (Gauhati) ) and in that we have followed the ratio in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC). Following the above d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X