9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in these several cases is somewhat different, the substance of the matter is one and the same. The question referred in T.R.C. No. 195 of 1977 is as follows: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the quantum of penalty should be calculates with reference to the law as on the date on which the return was due to be filed for the assessment year to which the penalty order pertained ? " Section 14(1) of the Act provides. "14. (1) Every person, if his net wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act on the valutation date was of such an amount as to render him liable to wealth-tax under this Act,shall, bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required by sub-section (1) of section 14 br by such notice, as the case may be ; or... The above provision was operative with effect from April 1, 1965, by virtue of the amendment in the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964 (46 of 1964). Subsequently, by section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969 (Act 14 of 1969), sub-section (1), clauses (i) and (ii), were substituted with effect from April 1, 1969, by two sub-clauses along with an Explanation. In the cases before us, the return of wealth-tax was due to be filed before April 1, 1969, either by requirement of notice under section 14(1) or by virtue of notice under section 14(2) or by virtue of time being extended by the Wealth-tax Officer to file that return. Before the Tribunal, the contention ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to the quantum of penalty was altered from time to time, the date of default and, therefore, the date of incurring the liability, does not get changed nor does the quantum of penalty get varied. The amendment made in 1969 is not with retrospective effect and cannot in any way effect the liability which got crystallised earlier to its coming in to force. This view of ours gets support from the decision of the High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar [1975] 98 ITR 540 (Mad), under the Gift-tax Act, in relation to an identical provision, in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ram Narain Agrawal [1977] 106 ITR 965 of the High Court of Allahabad and in Commissioner of Wealth- tax v. R. D. Chand [1977] 108 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
