9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1968-69, the valuation date being July 8, 1967. The due date for filing the return under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was June 30, 1968, but the assessee filed his return on November 6, 1969. For the delay in filing the return, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act and penalty of Rs. 23,400 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of law as effective up to that date and thereafter at the increased rate under the amended law. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the Revenue and following the decisions of the Madras High Court and the Allahabad High Court, respectively, held that the offence was committed on the due date when the return was not filed and the law on that date would govern the levy of penalty. On an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed on account of commission of a wrongful act, it was the law operating on the date on which the wrongful act was committed which would determine the penalty. (b) Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Suresh Seth [1981] 129 ITR 328 (SC), The facts of this case are similar to the facts before us. It was held by the Supreme Court in this case that where the assessee committed default under section 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iating proceedings for imposition of penalty was, when the Income-tax Officer decided to impose penalty after the assessment. It was held that the Income-tax Act, 1961, would apply. The Supreme Court further held that in the scheme for imposing penalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the default was to be treated as a continuing default. The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Seth[198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
