TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs were so pending before the Wealthtax Officer, the assessee moved the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 18(2A) of the Act for waiver or reduction of penalty leviable in his case by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, on his application, fixed Rs. 5,000 as the amount of penalty. This order is made final under section 18(2B) of the Act, as no appeal lay against the order passed by the Commissioner. On receipt of this order, the Wealth-tax Officer, in compliance with that order, passed the order imposing penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Act of the same amount, i.e., Rs. 5,000. The assessee, treating this order of the Wealth-tax Officer to be an independent order, challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 18(1)(a), penalties can be imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer only when there is a default on the part of the assessee in not filing the returns (in time) without reasonable cause. It is argued that no finding has been recorded by the Wealth-tax Officer that default was committed by the assessee without any reasonable cause and that the orders passed by the Wealth-tax Officer for all these years are bad, inasmuch as no opportunity as required by law of being heard was given to the assessee by the Wealth-tax Officer. The contention of the Revenue is that if it is taken for granted that the orders purportedly passed under section 18(1)(a) were really passed under that provision, then certainly the assessee deserved to get the opport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested by the fact whether the amount of penalties as reduced by the Commissioner of Wealthtax was to be recovered separately from the assessee by the Wealth-tax Officer. As the amount of penalty reduced by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 18(2A) has not been separately demanded from the assessee, we think that the contention of the Revenue is correct. Had there been an independent order under section 18(1)(a) and had the Wealth-tax Officer imposed the penalties under section 18(1)(a) independent of the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 18(2A), then the order of the Wealth-tax Officer would have been capable of being executed independent of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alth-tax Officer sought to raise the demands as per the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. It being so, we hold that no provision of law was flouted by the Wealth-tax Officer and the orders passed by him cannot be said to be bad on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee. Also, the orders cannot be impugned on the ground that the Wealth-tax Officer did not record as clear finding that the default was committed by the assessee in not filing the return without reasonable cause. As no order has been passed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a), it was not necessary for the Wealth-tax Officer to consider all these points. For the above reasons, we hold that the Appellate Assistant Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
