9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re : Re :-Assessment year 1965-66: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in reducing the penalty to Rs. 82 for the assessment year 1965-66 as against Rs. 1,993 imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer ? Re:-Assessment year 1966-67: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in reducing the penalty to Rs. 95 for the assessment year 1966-67 as against Rs. 2,340 imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer ? Re :-Assessment year 1967-68 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in reducing the penalty to Rs. II 3 for the assessment year 1967-68 as against Rs. 2,305 imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o know of her liability under the Act. The explanation given by the assessee was not accepted by the WTO who imposed penalties as stated above. The orders of the WTO have been marked as annexures A, Al, A2 and A3, respectively, and form part of the statement of the case. Before the AAC, the same arguments were reiterated and it was submitted that the appellant having made the returns and deposited the tax deserved some consideration from the Department. It was also submitted that a token penalty was sufficient in such a case to meet the ends of justice. The AAC held that it was the assessee's responsibility to file her return is there was no doubt that her wealth exceeded the limit of exemption laid down under the Act. The AAC did not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see came to know about her wealth-tax liability only on February 3, 1970, when the I.T. returns were filed. The Tribunal, however, held this contention to be untenable in law and on this point upheld the orders of the AAC. The imposition of penalty was, therefore, upheld and the quantum thereof was substantially reduced for the years in question on the ground that the law before its amendment in 1969 applied to these assessment years. The Tribunal, accordingly, sustained the penalties only of Rs. 82, Rs. 95, Rs. 113 and Rs. 110, respectively, for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal was of the view that the amendment of s. 18(1)(a) affected the substantive right of the assessee and was not a part of the procedural law and, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding Acts. The principle underlying s. 6 of the General Clauses Act is made applicable to such cases. It was, therefore, held by the Supreme Court in that case that where the default complained of was one falling under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act, penalty had to be computed in accordance with the law in force on the last day on which the return in question had to be filed. Neither the amendment made in 1964 nor the amendment made in 1969 had any retrospective effect. The question posed before us, therefore, has already been answered by the Supreme Court on principle in Suresh Seth's case [1981] 129 ITR 328 (SC), wherein it has been categorically held that the amendment made in 1969 had no retrospective effect. In that view of the matter, we com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
