9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 1965-66 and in the sum of Rs. 1,649 for the assessment year 1966-67. In so doing, the Wealth-tax Officer applied, for the period of default up to March 31, 1969, the provisions of section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax. Act, 1957, as they stood before the amendment thereof, effective on and from April 1, 1969, made by section 24(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 1969, and, for the period of default subsequent to April 1, 1969, the amended provision. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessee's contentions. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, in further appeal, found no words in section 24(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 1969, or in the amended section 18(1)(a) to indicate that this amendment had retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 16 as reduced by the amount of net wealth on which, in accordance with the rates of wealthtax specified in Paragraph A of Part I of the Schedule or Part II of the Schedule, the wealth-tax chargeable is nil, or (B) the net wealth assessed under section 17, where assessment has been made under that section, as reduced by (1) the net wealth, if any, assessed previously under section 16 or section 17, or (2) the amount of net wealth on which, in accordance with the rates of wealth-tax specified in Paragraph A of Part I of the Schedule or Part II of the Schedule, the wealth-tax chargeable is nil, whichever is greater, but not exceeding, in the aggregate, an amount equal to the net wealth assessed under section 16, or, as the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of imposition of penalty would arise only after the assessment of tax was made and, therefore, in Suresh Seth's case [1981] 129 ITR 328 (SC), on the analogy of the ratio accepted in Jain Bros.' case [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC), the amended provisions for the imposition of penalty would have become applicable. The imposition of penalty not confined to the first default but with reference to the continued default was on the footing that noncompliance with the obligation of making a return was an infraction as long as the default continued. The position that penalty was imposable not only for the first default but as long as the default continued and such penalty was to be calculated at a prescribed rate on monthly basis was indicative of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
