9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1975, has been assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax and is being assessed under those Acts for the last several years. The wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1971-72 was filed by the petitioner on June 10, 1971. In that return, the petitioner had shown a sum of Rs. 45,122.17 as the amount lying as fixed deposit with N. R. Patel & Co. This return was submitted to the WTO concerned, and along with the said return, the petitioner had also filed a certificate issued by Messrs. Nalinbhai R. Patel & Co. dated 31st March, 1971, showing the amount of the deposit. In token of the submission of the return along with the said certificate, the WTO concerned issued the necessary receipt. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e me. I find that the conditions of section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act are satisfied in this case. Looking to this fact and other facts of this case, I reduce the minimum penalty leviable under section 18(1)(a) to Rs. 7,500." At the relevant time, the provisions for penalty in the W.T. Act, 1957, were as follows : " 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-- ........ (c) has concealed the particulars of any assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of any assets or debts ; he or it may, by order in writing, direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty-- ....... (iii) in the cases ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The only question is whether the order passed by him in these terms-- " Looking to this fact and other facts of this case " amounts to sufficient reasons which, according to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, the Commissioner was bound to give in passing this quasi-judicial order. It is obvious that when the Commissioner exercised his discretion under s. 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, he acted in a quasi-judicial manner because, in exercise of his discretion, he can reduce or waive the amount of the minimum penalty imposable under sub-s. (1) of s. 18. The position in law has been made very clear by several decisions of the Supreme Court and we need only quote three recent decisions in this judgment. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Wool ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases, this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions. So it is necessary to emphasise that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. " In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785, the question before the Supreme Court was in the context of the Tariff Act and the decision of the Assistant Collector of Customs in the context of the Tariff Act. In para. 6 of the judgment at page 1789, Bhagwati J., speaking for the Supreme Court, has dealt with thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would not satisfy the requirement of law." (Emphasis supplied by us) In the instant case, the only reason that is found in the order of the CWT is " Looking to this fact ", viz., that the conditions of s. l8(2A) are satisfied, and looking to the other facts of the case, the Commissioner reduced the Minimum penality leviable under s. 18(1)(a) to Rs.7,500. To use the words of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M. L. Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 at page 97, this is nothing else but an apology for reasons which are required to be recorded by the quasi-judicial authority. The latest decision in this line is to be found in the decision in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. In para. 64, at page 630, Bhagwati J. has observed : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been breached in this particular case by the failure to supply the reasons so far as the Commissioner's order was concerned, the order must be struck down and in each of these cases, therefore, the special civil application will be allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner will be struck down as reasons in support of the order are not given, and the rule will be made absolute accordingly. The respondent-Commissioner in each of these three special civil applications will pay the costs of the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs. It will be open to the Commissioner to pass an appropriate order after taking into consideration all the facts and what has been stated in this judgment. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
