TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only the standing counsel. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e obtaining posterior to the date of amendment on the principle of continuous default. This question is no more res integra, as the same controversy came to be decided in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC). The view taken in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Banerjee (P. N.) [1991] 192 ITR 399. In the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , held as follows : "... that the penalty had to be quantified in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj [1986] 157 ITR 330 wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty was not to be confined to the first default but with reference to the continuing default on the footing that non-compliance with the obligation of making a return was an infraction as long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
