9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears, however, that the petitioner really looked for relief to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, whom he had approached under s. 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), on May 10, 1972, seeking thereby the waiving of the penalty leviable under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jullundur, by his order of March 24, 1977 (annexure P/3), waived the penalty in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68, but declined the petitioner's prayer for such waiver for the year 1968-69, on the ground that the return for this assessment year had been filed after the petitioner had been issued the requisite notice under s. 14(2) of the Act. As regards the notice under s. 14(2) for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 968-69 was filed after receipt of notice under s. 14(2) of the Act and, therefore, the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 1968-69 was not similar to that of the earlier years. The other and main point urged was with regard to the relevant provisions of the W.T. Act under which penalty for late submission of the return for 1968-69 was leviable, the question here being whether it was to be as per the provisions of the Act as they stood on the last date for submission of returns, namely, June 30, 1968., or as on September 13, 1971, when the return was actually filed. Prior to March 31, 1969, the relevant provisions of s. 18 were as set out below: " (i) in the cases referred to in clause (a), in addition to the amount of wealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amendment made in 1969 had no retrospective effect and further that non-performance of any of the acts mentioned in s. 18(1)(a) of the Act gave rise only to a single default, such default being committed on the last date allowed for filing the return and the penalty had thus to be computed in accordance with the law in force on the last day on which the return in question had to be filed. The law having been so settled, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the penalty leviable on the petitioner in respect of the year 1968-69 was that as per the provisions of the W.T. Act as they stood on June 30, 1968. This being so, the rate at which penalty had been imposed on the petitioner was on the face of it not warranted by law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
