9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied under section 18(1) of the Wealth-tax Act ? " In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. One Humayun Mirza of Bangalore, the natural father of the assessee, was the owner of two valuable immovable properties bearing No. 2, Ali Askar Road, and No. 149/150, Infantry Road of Bangalore City. On March 16, 1967, Humayun Mirza made an oral gift of the said two properties in favour of the assessee who was then studying at London. In that view, Smt. Zeebrunnisa Begum, the natural mother and general power of attorney (G.P.A.) of the assessee, accepted the said gift for and on behalf of the assessee. But notwithstanding the above, the assessee or his G.P.A. or his father, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sum up, we direct that for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, penalty should be recalculated on the basis of section 18(1)(a) as it stood prior to April 1, 1969, that penalty for assessment years 1968-69, 1970-71 and 1972-73 should be recomputed taking into consideration the fact that the time for filing the returns was extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes up to August 31, 1969, September 30, 1970, and July 31, 1972 respectively. The penalty for 1973-74 is cancelled while the penalties for the remaining two years, viz., 1969-70 and 1971-72, are confirmed." Hence these references for the said years. Sri K. Ramanujulu, learned counsel for the assessee, strenuously contends that the Tribunal was unjustified in upholding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and cannot be disturbed by us in a proceeding under section 27 of the Act which is analogous to section 256 of the Income-tax Act. But still, Sri Ramanujulu who argued the cases with thoroughness, made a very strong and passionate plea to disagree with the said finding of the Tribunal on the ground that at all material times, the assessee as a student was residing outside India. We will assume that the assessee at all material times was outside India. But still that absence, considered by the Tribunal, does not by itself, in law, constitute a ground to hold that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for non-filing of the returns within the time stipulated by the Act. We see no merit in this contention of Sri Ramanujulu. Before us and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king for the submission of the return. Under the circumstances, there is vagueness in the order of the Income-tax Officer and the order cannot be said to be a legal and speaking order. On this ground alone the penalty order can be cancelled' (Emphasis added). Though the Tribunal characterised this situation as being vague (vagueness in the order of the Income-tax Officer), it seems apparent that the real import of the said finding is that vagueness was due to the fact that no precise starting point of time, relevant to the imposition of penalty, could be fixed and, hence, the same was invalid. It seems to us that fixing precisely the starting point (commencement) of the default is basic to the imposition of penalty; in other words, no val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to be a continuing one. In United Savings and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Chief Officer, Reserve Bank of India [1980] Crl. LJ 607, while referring to section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, it was held that refusal to comply with the terms of the said section created an offence and continued to be an offence so long as such failure or refusal persisted. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Delhi Development Authority [1982] Crl. LJ 2230, while referring to the provisions of the Delhi Development Act of 1957, the court held that the offence was a continuing one. In Bhattar v. State, AIR 1957 Cal 483, it was pointed out that a continuing offence or a continuing wrong is after all a continuing breach of the duty which itself is cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of arithmetical calculation and nothing more than that. We are firmly of the view that what had been enunciated by their Lordships in Golaprai Hoonlal and Co.'s case [1977] 110 ITR 896 (Gauhati) is nothing but legislation in the thin guise of interpretation which is impermissible. With great respect to their Lordships, we regret our inability to subscribe to the views expressed in Golaprai Hoonlal and Co.'s case [1977] 110 ITR 896 (Gauhati). On the foregoing discussion, it follows that we have no other alternative except to answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the light of our above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
