9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-4-1969 for the assessment year 1968-69 ? " The facts relating to this question are as follows: The assessee, a cine-artist, should have filed a wealth-tax return for the year 1968-69 by 30th June, 1968. She, however, filed the return only on 23rd March, 1970. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment on 27th April, 1970, and initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act, for delay in submission of return. The assessee gave an explanation that she was not well and that her secretary, who was in charge of the income-tax matters for 15 years, had left her some months previously. She has also stated that her chartered accountant was not in Madras for a couple of months, and that she filed the return, subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the assessee filed the relevant returns on 23rd March, 1970, and 27th April, 1970, respectively. The assessments were completed on 27th April, 1970. Under s. 18(5) of the W.T. Act, at the time of completion of the assessment, no order imposing a penalty could be passed after the expiry of 2 years from the date of completion of the proceedings in the course of which the proceedings for the levy of penalty were commenced. Judged by this criterion, the penalty orders should have been passed by April 26, 1972. However, they were passed only on 30th June, 1972. In the meantime, there was an amendment to s. 18(5) of the W.T. Act, which was brought into force from 1st April, 1971. According to the amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, that is, before the expiry of the said period of limitation. It is now well settled that if before the limitation period expired, the period of limitation is extended, the limitation provision, being a procedural one, the extended period of limitation would apply to such proceedings. This has been laid down in S. C. Prashar v.. Vasantsen Dwarkadas [1963] 49 ITR 1 (SC), which has been recently followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical and Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743 [FB]. The result is that the question referred, at the instance of the assessee, is to be answered as follows: The levy of penalty is not barred by time, in view of the amendment of s. 18(5) of the W.T. Act. There will be no order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
