- (1.) NOTICE by registered post was sent to the assessee on August 6, 1991. None appears for the assessee and we have, therefore, heard only the standing counsel.
(2.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal, as directed by this court, under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, referred the following question for opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view of the Tribunal that the relevant date for purposes of imposition of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is the date when the return is actually filed (sic) is justified ?" The relevant facts are that for the assessment year 1964-65, the wealth-tax return had become due on June 30, 1964, from the assessee, but it came to be filed on November 23, 1972. Amendment in Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act came to be made on March 31, 1969, and the effect of that amendment was that with effect from April 1, 1969, the rate of penalty was enhanced. The Wealth-tax Officer treated the default on the part of the assessee as a continuous default and he levied penalty up to March 31, 1969, under the unamended law and with effect from April 1, 1969, penalty was imposed under the amended law.
(3.) ON appeal, the view of the Wealth-tax Officer was upheld. ON further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal found as follows ; "In our opinion, the default occurred on June 30, 1964, that is on the date when the return was not filed. There was no application for extension nor was it extended by a notice issued under Section 14(2) of the Act. We need not go into the question as to whether an offence under Section 18(1)(a) is a continuing default, because under the provisions of the Act before the amendment which came into effect from April 1, 1969, penalty could be levied for 25 months only and this period of 25 months expired long before that amendment came into force. In other words, the period for which penalty could have been imposed had already been exhausted when the amendment came into effect and this amendment cannot revive the exhausted period, therefore, it is not necessary for us to enter into this controversy and, in our opinion, in the present case the penalty would be computed under Section 18(1)(a)(i) as in force prior to April 1, 1969." The only question for consideration is that when the amendment came before the return was filed whether penalty is to be imposed on the two rates, that is, the rate obtaining anterior to the date of amendment and the rate obtaining posterior to the date of amendment on the principle of continuous default.;