9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alpur (hereinafter called " the assessee ") failed to file returns of his net wealth under s. 14(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"), for the assessment years 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69, on the due dates. The WTO, 'A' Ward, Pali, issued notices to the assessee under s. 14(2) of the Act but in spite of service of the notices, the assessee failed to file the returns. The WTO thereupon completed the assessments in respect of the aforesaid assessment years on November 29, 1969. During the course of assessment proceedings, the WTO issued notices to the assessee under s. 18(2) of the Act to show cause why penalty for his failure to furnish returns of wealth within the prescribed time be not imposed upon him. In response to the show cause notice, the only explanation furnished by the assessee before the WTO was that since no return of wealth was at all submitted by him, penalty under s. 18(1) could not be levied. The WTO disagreed with the contention put forward on behalf of the assessee and he proceeded to impose penalty in the sums of Rs. 5,625, Rs. 5,535 and Rs. 5,325 respectively upon the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it is not in dispute that the assessee did not file any return of his wealth in respect of the three assessment years, namely, 1965-66,1967-68 and 1968-69, not only on the due date but at any time (thereafter). According to sub-s. (1) of s. 14 of the Act, every person, whose net wealth is assessable under the Act, and was liable to payment of wealth-tax on the valuation date, was required to furnish to the WTO the return of his net wealth before 30th day of June, of the corresponding assessment year. Thus, the return of wealth in respect of the three assessment years 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69 were due to be filed on June 30, 1965, June 30, 1967 and June 30, 1968, respectively. Prior to its amendment by the Finance Act of 1969, the relevant provisions of s. 18(1) of the Act read as under : " 18. (1) If the Wealth-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner or Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his net wealth which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 14 or by notice given under sub-section (2) of section 14 or sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase in the manner aforesaid ; ...... .." It is not in dispute that the default or failure to furnish returns in respect of each of the three assessment years was committed by the assessee prior to April 1, 1969, which exposed him to imposition of penalty under s. 18(1) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the default in not furnishing the return was a continuing wrong and even though the default occurred earlier, the same continued even after April 1, 1969, and so the Tribunal held that the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the assessee was to be calculated at 2% of the wealth-tax payable prior to April 1, 1969, and at 1/2% of the net wealth for the period after April 1, 1969, up to the date when the assessment was completed. Thus the Appellate Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the law applicable for the purpose of levy of penalty was the law which was in force at the time when the default occurred by not furnishing the return on the due date. There was difference of opinion among the various High Courts on this question. However, the controversy in this respect has now been set at rest by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CWT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r do they make the amended provisions modifying the penalty applicable to earlier defaults in the absence of necessary provisions in the amending Acts. The principle underlying section 6 of the General Clauses Act is clearly applicable to these cases. It may be stated here that the majority of the High Courts in India have also taken the same view." Thus, when the default complained of falls under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act, penalty has to be computed in accordance with the law in force on the last date on which the return relating to the assessment year in question could have been filed. The subsequent amendment would not affect the quantum of penalty which could be imposed under s. 18(1)(a). We, therefore, hold that penalty imposable upon the assessee for not filing the return under the W.T. Act, in respect of the assessment years prior to April 1, 1969, would be governed by s. 18(1) of the W.T. Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1969, and the amended s. 18(1) would not affect the quantum of penalty imposable upon the assessee for such default, as the default could not be said to have continued after the amendment of s. 18 with effect from April 1, 1969. As a matter of fact, in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
