9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to the legal advice given to him. He goes on to say that the wealth-tax returns for the aforesaid years were prepared on the 28th November, but they could not be finalised on that day and were filed on December 2, 1971. As the returns were not filed within the time allowed under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, he applied to the first respondent, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow, on December 3,.1971, for waiver of penalty for filing the returns late, as provided under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act. On December 6, 1971, he was served with a set of six notices under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act all dated November 29, 1971, issued by the second respondent, the Wealth-tax Officer, Chandausi, for the years 1965-66 to 1970-71. The returns already filed were accepted and he was assessed to tax by the Wealth-tax Officer by his order dated January 24, 1972. Thereafter, the petitioner's application under section 18(2A) was taken up by the Commissioner and was finally disposed of on September 7, 1972. The Commissioner found that as no notice under section 17 had been issued by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment year 1964-65, the return filed by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osure of such particulars ; (b) has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of the wealth represented by such assets ; and (c) has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year." The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Commissioner on the following grounds : (i) That when the petitioner had informed the Wealth-tax Officer on 29th of November, 1972, that he would be filing his wealth-tax returns, he had made a full disclosure of his wealth before the notices under section 17 were issued to him and as such he was entitled to that benefit by way of waiver or reduction of penalty. (ii) That the notices under section 17 must have been issued by the Wealth-tax Officer after the petitioner had filed his returns on December 2, 1972, and had been ante-dated. (iii) That no notices under section 14(2) were issued to him as contemplated by clause (2A) of section 18. (iv) That the word "issue" occurring in section 18(2A) means "serve" and as he had filed the returns before the notices were served on him, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf and circumstances for exercise of authority are shown to exist. Even if the words used in the statute are prima facie enabling, the courts will readily infer a duty to exercise power which is invested in aid of enforcement of a right--public or private--of a citizen." In support of the second limb of his argument the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Mysore High Court in Indian Telephone Industries Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, where it has been held that the power conferred upon the Commissioner under section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which corresponds to section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act), is not in the nature of a quasi-judicial power and, there fore, he is not required to give a hearing. It is not necessary for us to decide as to whether the order contemplated by section 18(2A) is an administrative order or an order of quasi-judicial nature, because even if it is administrative in nature, the line between an administrative and a quasi-judicial order is now very thin. Even an administrative order is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under article 226, if it is contrary to law. Moreover, in the instant case, we are not concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legislature wanted to give the word "issue" a different meaning than had been assigned to it by the courts. According to the Commissioner, the intention of the legislature was that an assessee should make a full disclosure of his wealth before the department becomes aware of it, otherwise he would not be entitled to the reduction or waiver by the Commissioner. We find no justification for such a view. It is not the awareness of the Wealth-tax Officer but the issue of a notice under section 17 which disentitles an assessee of the benefit by way of waiver or reduction of penalty at the hands of the Commissioner and if the word "issue" means "serve" then we are bound to hold that an assessee, who makes a disclosure of his wealth before a notice under section 17 is served upon him, is entitled to the benefit and the Commissioner would be fully empowered to exercise the discretion vested in him under section 18(2A). This conclusion is re-inforced by the fact that under sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2A) of section 18 which deals with cases of concealment, the Commissioner is empowered to grant relief to an assessee, who makes disclosure of his concealed wealth after the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
