Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) THE question of law which requires our consideration in this reference is whether peualty proceedings under the W.T. Act for late filing of the returns commenced against the person who had filed the returns can validly be continued after his death against his legal representative.
(2.) THIS reference relates to the eassessment years 1961-62 to 1969-70. For the first eight years Rameshwar Prasad filed returns under the W.T. Act on 12th April, 1970, while for the assessment year 1969-70, return was filed on 12th March, 1970. The belated returns were entertained. The WTO, in due course, finalised and completed assessments for all these years on 23rd May, 1970. Subsequently, the WTO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act by issuing show-cause notice under that provision. Rameshwar Prasad filed a reply on 23rd June, 1970. He took the plea that the total wealth for the aforesaid year was below the taxable limit. He did not commit any deliberate default in delaying the filing of returns. While the proceedings were pending, Rameshwar Prasad died on 22nd February, 1973. His son and legal representative, Inder Bhushan, appears to have been brought on record and the proceedings were continued. Inder Bhushan filed an objection submitting that the penalty proceedings which were initiated against his deceased father could not validly be continued against him. This submission was repelled. Ultimately, penalties were imposed for each of the aforesaid nine years for varying amounts.
(3.) INDER Bhushan went up in appeal, which failed. He then approached the Tribunal in further appeal. The Tribunal upheld the levy of penalty. At the instance of the legal representative, the Tribunal has submitted a statement of the case and has sought our opinion on the question of law mentioned at the beginning of this judgment.;