TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r paid wealth-tax on the basis of those returns as per the provisions of section 15B of the Act. The net wealth as declared by the petitioner in the said returns, it is stated in the petition, was accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer as per the assessment orders, copies of which are annexures A-1 to A-7 to the writ petition. The Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Act for levying penalty for late filing of the returns in respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1968-69 to 1971-72. For the assessment year 1967-68, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 18(1)(c) of the Act and issued show-cause notice requiring the petitioner to state as to why penalty for concealing of wealth be not levied. This proceeding qua the assessment year 1967-68 was, however, dropped by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner holding that there was no concealment on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax acting under section 25(2) of the Act directed that penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Act for late submission of the return for that year be initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner by an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipt of notice under section 14(2) of the Act. I may note here another fact and that is that the respondents have chosen not to file any return to the rule nisi. However, Mr. Wazir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, at the time of arguments took up a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, although the Commissioner passed a common order rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking quashing of the levy of penalty for the various assessment years, yet the petitioner was obliged to file separate writ petition in respect of each assessment order and not joint petition assailing the imposition of penalty in respect of all the assessment years in question. In support of his contention, Mr. Wazir Singh cited A.P. Vasudevan v. State of Madras [1978] Tax LR (NOC) 97, wherein single judge of the Madras High Court held that where 18 assessment orders were challenged in 18 revision petitions which were disposed of by the Commissioner appointed under the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act by a common order, a single writ petition was not maintainable challenging all those assessment orders. The reasons for arriving at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention that the order passed by the Commissioner is correct and that the petitioner was under a "constraint " to file the returns as he " was likely to be caught " and hence those returns were not voluntary, relies on Hakam Singh v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 228 (All). The facts, in the said case, were that on November 22, 1973, the business premises of the petitioner in that case were searched by the Income-tax Department and certain books were seized. Thereafter, the petitioner on October 7, 1974, filed returns of income for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Subsequently, on March 25, 1975, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, was served on the petitioner. In due course, the Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings for delay in filing the returns and for not filing the estimate of advance tax under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b). Thereupon, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner under section 273A for waiver or reduction of the imposable penalty. I may note here that the provisions of section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act are in pari materia with section 273A [271(4A) before deletion with effect from October 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tary. It was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that a notice cannot be said to have been issued to a person unless he is served with it. Therefore, an assessee who makes a full disclosure of his wealth before notice is served, is entitled to the benefit of section 18(2A). The order of the Commissioner was accordingly set aside on the ground that he failed to exercise his discretion under the provisions of the Act. Another case cited by Mr. Ahuja is Madhukar Manilal Modi v. CWT [1978] 113 ITR 318 (Guj). The facts of that case were that the assessee filed his return of net wealth under section 14(1) of the Act on November 29, 1971, for the assessment year 1971-72. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the returns were filed by him on September 19, 1973, a few days before the assessment for 1971-72 was completed. It was the admitted case of the parties that the returns for the said two years were filed only after the assessee was asked during the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1971-72 to file those returns. The application made by the assessee to the Commissioner under section 18(2A) praying that the minimum penalty imposable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
