DHAN KAUR AND SONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal Gauhati Bench has referred the following question at the instance of the assessee under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for a decision of this Court. THE question reads : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the calculation of penalty relating to the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1968-69 for the period up to 31st March, 1969 was to be made under S. 18(1)(i) of the WT Act, 1957, as substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1965 by S. 18 of the WT (Amendment) Act, 1964, and thereafter under s.18(1)(i) as substituted by s. 24 of the Finance Act, 1969 ?"

(2.) THE facts leading to the present reference appear from the statement of the case in the following way : THE assessment years involved are 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1968-69. Under S. 14(1) of the Act the assessee was required to file the return of his net wealth by 30th June, 1965, 30th June, 1966, 30th June, 1967 and 30th June, 1968 for the asst. yrs. 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 respectively. THE WTO served notice under S. 14(2) of the Act on the assessee and then the assessee filed returns for the asst. yr. 1965-66 on 26th May, 1969 and for the other asst yrs. on 5th June, 1969. THEre was delay in filing the returns of wealth by 45 month, 35 months, 23 months and 11 months respectively. THE assessment were made under S. 16(3) of the said Act on total wealth of Rs. 9,56,000, Rs. 9,55,429 Rs. 10.07,920 and Rs. 10,45,299 in the four assessment years respectively and the net tax payable was determined at Rs. 4,060, Rs. 3,088 Rs. 6,654 and Rs. 7,406 respectively.

(3.) AGAINST the order of the AAC both the assessee and the Department filed appeals. The assessee's appeals were relating to the asst. yrs. 1966-67 to 1968-69. The assessee also filed appeal relating to the asst. yr. 1965-66. In the appeals the asessee pleaded that the orders passed by the WTO and the AAC of WT were unjust and bad in law as well as on facts and that the penalty should not have been imposed and at any rate the amount of penalty imposed was too high. In the cross-objection the assessee pleaded that the penalty should not have been imposed and that there ought not to be two rates of penalty but it should be at the rates as prescribed in the Act of the assessment year concerned. The Department in all the appeals for all the years pleaded that the AAC was no correct in reducing the penalty imposed by the WTO under S. 18(1)(a) of the Act.