9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalties will be as contained in section 18(1)(a) before its amendment by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 46 of 1964) w.e.f. April 1, 1965, which required the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax before the Wealth-tax Officer could impose a penalty and not the provisions of section 18(1)(a) as amended by the Finance Act, 1969 ? " The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, briefly are as follows: By an order dated December 15, 1971, the WTO imposed a penalty on the assessee for default in submitting the returns for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1964-65. The assessee preferred appeals before the AAC, but those appeals were dismissed. The assessee the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. The impugned orders imposing penalty were passed by the WTO on December 15, 1971. On December 19, 1969, when notice under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the WTO or on December 15, 1971, when penalty was imposed, the requirement about obtaining the prior approval of the IAC before passing an order imposing penalty had been dispensed with. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of penalty passed by the WTO was vitiated on account of failure to obtain the previous approval of the IAC before passing an order imposing the penalty. It is now well settled that in the case of a penalty, it is the law operating on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Tribunal, in our opinion was not justified, in holding that the old s. 18(4) of the Act would govern the procedure even after a repeal of that provision. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was also not justified in holding that there was a vested right in an assessee to have his case considered by the IAC prior to the passing of an order imposing penalty by the WTO. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in CWT v. K. Butchaiah [1977] 108 ITR 324 that the provisions of old s. 18(4) of the Act did not confer any vested right on the assessee. We are in respectful agreement with that view. On the date, when the order imposing the penalty was passed by the WTO, there was no provision of law requiring him to obtain the prior approval of the IA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
