9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the penalties of Rs. 5,382 and Rs. 7,759 levied by the department on the assessee under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively ? " The wealth-tax returns of the assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were due on June 30, 1964, and June 30, 1965, as laid down in section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called " the Act "). The same were, however, filed on March 18, 1971, after a delay of about six years. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments for the aforementioned years on March 22, 1971, on a total wealth of Rs. 1,45,800 and Rs. 1,65,200, respectively, as against the declared wealth of Rs. 1,38,550 and Rs. 1,59,127, respectively. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. Since the two appeals had been consolidated by the last mentioned Tribunal, a consolidated reference has been made to us. The precise question involved in the case is whether penalties should be imposed on the assessee on the basis of section 18(1)(a) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment on April 1, 1969, by the Finance Act, 1969, or the same should be increased from April 1, 1969, onwards by which date this section had been amended by the Finance Act, 1969. The point whether the non-filing of a return under section 14(1) of the Act constitutes a continuing default or not is not bare of authority and has received the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Finance Act, 1969, was not retrospective in effect and the penalties under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, were exigible in these cases for the assessment years 1964-65 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 on the scale in force prior to the Finance Act, 1969 ? " While answering the question against the department and in favour of the assessee, the Bench observed as under--See [1977] 106 ITR 965,968 (All): " The law operative on the date when the infringement takes place is the law applicable unless it is made punishable ex post facto. If the argument of the department is accepted it shall make the operation of the amended law retrospective when there a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iwalla AIR 1955 Bom 161 and State v. Umashankar Laxminarayan Jaiswal AIR 1962 MP 311. We shall now briefly deal with these three authorities. In Kunja Behari Chandra's case AIR 1954 Pat 371 [FB], the Patna High Court was concerned with the interpretation of sections 30 and 31(4) of the Mines Act, 1923, Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946, and Mines Creche Rules, 1946. The relevant rules provided that creche should be provided for the children of the workers and workers should be allowed the facility of having a bath at the pithead of the mines. Apparently, the rules conferred important privileges on the coal miners which they were entitled to enjoy from day-to-day. It was also the legal duty of the owners of the coal mines to provide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omission to give a notice of occupation are the types of acts or omission which can properly be regarded as of the same type. Had the statute provided that the possession of wealth, without filing a return in respect of it before the Wealth-tax Officer, would constitute a wrongful act, the default would certainly be regarded as a continuing one. There is, however, no such provision in the Act. The aforementioned considerations apart, the matter stands concluded against the revenue by some of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan AIR 1959 SC 798, 807. These observations are: " It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , forfeiture or punishment, may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed." If the assessee by not filing the returns on June 30, 1964, and June 30, 1965, had committed a default, the repeal or the modification of the provisions relating to penalty could not affect his right to be dealt with in accordance with the repealed or modified statutory provisions. After careful consideration of the whole matter, we are of the considered view that the omission of an assessee to file a return on the due date completes his default as on that date and does not render it a continuing default. Consequently, the penalty can be imposed on him only on the basis of the law which was prevalent on that date. We accordingly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
