- (1.) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2952-54 OF 1979 : These appeals are directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court answering the reference made under Section 27(1) of the Wealthtax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The question referred was : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the penalty to be levied for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 should be as per the provisions of Section 18(1)(a) as they stood before amendment with effect from 1-4-1965 (sic)." The High Court answered the said question in favour of the assessee following the earlier decision of the said Court in Commr. of Wealth Tax v. R. D. Chand, (1977) 108 ITR 787 : (1977 Tax LR 1242 (Andh Pra).
(2.) In these appeals, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the aforesaid question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee following the decision of this Court in Maya Rani Punj v. Commr. or Income-tax, (1986) 157 ITR 330 : (AIR 1986 SC 293) which has overruled the earlier decision of this Court in Commr. of Wealthtax v. Suresh Seth, (1981) 129 ITR 328 : (AIR 1981 SC 1106). Though the said decision has been rendered with reference to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Weatlth-tax Act are similar and the question considered therein was also similar to the one arising herein. Indeed, it overruled the decision in Suresh Seth, which fully supports the assessee's contention.
(3.) Sri Harish Salve, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, while not disputing that the said decision concludes the issue against the assessee, submitted that the decision in Maya Rani Punj (AIR 1986 SC 293) requires reconsideration inasmuch as it has not properly appreciated the ratio of the decision in Suresh Seth (AIR 1981 SC 1106). Counsel submitted that the overruling of the decision in Suresh Seth is not correct in law. We have heard Sri Salve at some length but we are not satisfied that there are any good and compelling reasons to depart from the law enunciated in Maya Rani Punj. The decision was rendered by a three-Judge bench and it has fully considered the principle of Suresh Seth but chose to disagree with it. Not only are we bound by the said decision, we are also not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds warranting reconsideration of the decision in Maya Rani Punj.;