R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order dated December 21, 1979, under Section 18B(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"), by which the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Meerut, has rejected in part an application for waiver or reduction of penalty, filed by one Sardar Jeewan Singh (since deceased), father of the first petitioner. Another challenge is to three notice letters issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer (Wealth-tax) 'E' Ward, Saharanpur, by which the second petitioner, Messrs. Rana Rubber Industries, a partnership firm and its banker were required to remit Rs. 26,539 to the Department from any amount due to Sardar Jeewan Singh/Rana Rubber Industries in satisfaction of the arrears being the amount of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 imposed on Sardar Jeewan Singh and interest due thereon.
(2.) WHILE entertaining the writ petition by an order dated March 3, 1982, this court had granted the following interim order : "Issue notice. Meanwhile, the operation of the notices dated December 31, 1981, and January 30, 1982, as modified by the order dated February 6, 1982, shall remain stayed provided petitioner No. 1 furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer (Wealth-tax), 'E' Ward, Saharanpur, within a month from today and deposits one-fourth of the amount due within a period of three months from today and thereafter goes on depositing an equal amount every quarter till the entire demand against the father of petitioner No. 1, i.e., Sardar Jeewan Singh, covered by the notices stands satisfied." During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not address us on the validity of the notices under Section 226(3) aforesaid ; presumably, the amount must have been paid in due course by the first petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this court. We are, therefore, not required to go into the validity to the challenge or into the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 226(3). Now, coming to the challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 18B(1) of the Act, it is necessary to set out a few facts which have a bearing on the controversy involved. It appears that Sardar Jeewan Singh, during his lifetime, filed his wealth-tax returns on or about July 23, 1974, for eight assessment years, namely, 1966-67 to 1973-74, for which he was assessed to wealth-tax. On completion of the assessments, not only notices for penalty were issued for late filing of the returns but penalties of varying amounts were also imposed for all those years. For the assessment year 1968-69, a penalty of Rs. 19,807 was imposed. Thereafter, Sardar Jeewan Singh applied to the first respondent under Section 18B(1) of the Act for waiver/reduction of the amounts of penalty imposed on him. The first respondent waived the penalties in full in respect of all the years except for the assessment year 1968-69. After the death of Sardar Jeewan Singh, his son, the first petitioner has filed the present writ petition, impugning the order of the Commissioner in so far as it concerns the assessment year 1968-69.
(3.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before proceeding further, we may also refer to the relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner by which he declined to grant the waiver application for the assessment year 1968-69. It reads as under : "Original return in this case was filed on July 23, 1974, net wealth was returned at Rs. 1,57,196. The Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee had not disclosed a deposit item of Rs. 5,460 with Messrs. Anoop Singh Jeewan Singh. The deposit of Rs. 5,460 was, therefore, added to the total wealth. It is, therefore, clear that the disclosure of wealth for this assessment year 1968-69 cannot be called full or complete or in good faith. The penalty, therefore, cannot be waived and the application for this year is rejected." ;