9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1969-70 8-10-1969 26-3-1979 31-3-1981 1970-71 18-1-1972 26-3-1979 31-3-1981 1971-72 18-1-1972 26-3-1979 31-3-1981 1972-73 19-1-1973 26-3-1979 31-3-1981 1973-74 31-10-1973 26-3-1979 31-3-1981. In the original assessment orders, the value of the flat at "El-Cid" Building at 13, Ridge Road, Bombay-6 including garage was taken at Rs. 1,39,000 for the first four assessment years and at Rs. 1,94,550 for the remaining two assessment years on the basis of the valuation made by the registered valuer. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated on 9.8.1974 under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. Valuation of the said fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the AAC. Several objections were raised against the imposition of penalties. It was pleaded that the proper show cause notices had not been issued and that the sufficient opportunity had not been given before imposing the penalties. It was further pleaded that the explanation of the assessee given in the letter dated 30.3.1981 had been completely ignored. It was further pleaded that all the facts relating to the flat and garage were disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessments and that the valuation shown in the original returns was based on the valuation report of registered valuer. It was further pleaded that the Board Circular No. 4.P(LXXVI-65) dt. 7.6.68 had not been followed and that Explanation to section 18(1) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent orders. Since the penalty is sought to be levied in respect of the concealment in the original returns, the law as applicable at the time of the filing of the original returns would govern the imposition of penalty. Section 18(3) prior to its amendment with effect from 1-4-1976 by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 was as follows :--- " (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of sub-section (1), if, in a case falling under clause (c) of that sub-section, the amount (as determined by the WTO on assessment) in respect of which penalty is imposable under clause (c) of sub-section (1) exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the WTO shall refer the case to the IAC who shall for the purpose have all the powers conferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f jurisdiction and as such, only order which the Appellate Authority could have passed was that of cancelling the penalty order. 7. In Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1, the Supreme Court has held that in respect of penalty imposable for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the return, law which was applicable was the law operating on the date when the return was filed. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18 as they stood prior to 1-4-1976 were applicable and we have already held that under those provisions, the WTO could not have imposed the penalty in excess of twenty-five thousand rupees and as such, the orders imposing the penalties were without jurisdiction. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction by the statute have been fulfilled. The statute, namely, sub-section (3) of section 18 as it stands after the amendment on 1-4-1976 requires previous approval of IAC and not of Commissioner of Wealth-tax. The IAC is the statutory authority whose approval would confer jurisdiction on the WTO. Approval of any authority even though that authority is higher in status to that of the statutory authority would not confer jurisdiction on the WTO when the statutory provision does not require the previous approval of the Commissioner but specifically requires the previous approval of the IAC. When statute confers jurisdiction on specified authority for grant of previous approval, that authority alone would have jurisdiction to grant previo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
