9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of the penalty order under s. 18B of the W.T. Act, 1957 imposed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay. Petitioner's appeal against penalty under s. 18(1)(c) allowed for certain assessment years. Dispute over penalty imposed under s. 18(1)(a) for late filing of wealth-tax returns. Petitioner's contention for waiver of penalty under s. 18B of the Act. Validity of discretionary order of the Commissioner in declining to waive penalties. Analysis: The judgment by PENDSE J. of the Bombay High Court addressed the challenge to the legality of a penalty order under s. 18B of the W.T. Act, 1957 imposed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. The petitioner, as the karta of an HUF, was required to file wealth-tax returns for various assessment years. Penalties were imposed by the WTO under s. 18(1)(a) for late filing and under s. 18(1)(c) for concealment of assets. The petitioner sought waiver of these penalties under s. 18B before the Commissioner. The Commissioner reduced the penalties under s. 18(1)(c) but did not waive the penalties under s. 18(1)(a), leading to the petition challenging this decision. Regarding the penalty imposed under s. 18(1)(c), the petitioner's appeal against the penalty for certain assessment years was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the petitioner's attempt to challenge the penalty for another assessment year was declined by the court, citing the pending appeal before the Tribunal. The court emphasized the impropriety of pursuing multiple remedies simultaneously and refused to entertain the challenge in the writ petition. In terms of the penalty under s. 18(1)(a) for late filing of returns, the petitioner argued that the returns were filed before the notice under s. 14(2) was issued, thus warranting waiver of the penalty. However, the court held that the Commissioner's discretionary power under s. 18B does not allow for challenging the WTO's jurisdiction to impose the penalty. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision to not waive the penalty under s. 18(1)(a), emphasizing the discretionary nature of such decisions. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments by highlighting that the discretionary order of the Commissioner was not arbitrary or irrational. The court emphasized that the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not to disturb every discretionary order and found no merit in the petition. Citing relevant case law, the court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioner to bear the costs, thereby upholding the Commissioner's decision regarding the penalties under s. 18B of the Act.
|
