Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) The assessment years involved are 1964-65 to 1969-70. In all these years, the net wealth returned by the assessee was less than 75 per cent. of the net wealth assessed by the WTO. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings and referred the same to the IAC of Wealth-tax as the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000 in each of these years under consideration. In response to the show-cause notice, it was pleaded that there was no concealment of any assets on the part of tbe assessee and that the provisions of Section 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act, 1957, were not applicable. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali and on some other cases in support of the assessee's contention. It was urged that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty could be imposed. The IAC observed that the assessee had valued the immovable property at their cost price and not on the market price on the valuation dates. She, therefore, invoked the provisions of Expln. (1) appended to Section 18(1)(c) as the net wealth returned fell short of 75 per cent. of the net wealth assessed and held that the assessee had failed to show that there was absence of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect in not returning the wealth. She, therefore, held that the assessee committed the default in each of the years under Section 18(1)(c). In respect of the quantum of penalty to be imposed, she pointed out that the assessee had applied to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 18(2A) for a waiver of penalty and the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had reduced the penalty to 5 per cent. of the minimum amount leviable or otherwise. The IAC, therefore, imposed the penalties at 5 per cent. of the minimum penalty imposable respectively in those years.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the order of the IAC, the assessee went up in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal was of the view that in view of Section 18(2A) read with Section 18(2B), no appeal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, lay. In the premises, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee's appeals were not maintainable and the same were accordingly dismissed. Out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the following question has been referred to this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the appeal filed by the assessee under Section 24 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, against the order of penalty passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 18(1)(c) read with Section 18(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was not maintainable on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax had quantified the penalty at 5% of the minimum penalty imposable in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?"
(3.) We are, therefore, concerned in this case with the situation, where the assessee had gone before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax by virtue of Section 18(2A) of the Act, and in such a case, whether the appeal would lie or not. Section 18 of the W.T. Act deals with penalty for failure to furnish a return, to comply with notices and concealment of assets, etc., but Sub-section (1) of Section 18, so far as it is material and relevant for our purpose, provides as follows : "18. (1) If the Wealth-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner or Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person- (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return which he is required to furnish under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 or by notice given under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 or Section 17, or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by Sub-section (1) of Section 14 or by such notice, as the case may be ; or (b) has without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) of Section 16 ; or (c) has concealed the particulars of any assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of any assets or debts, he or it may, by order in writing, direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty--.....";