TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ackersey (HUF) and was liable to file the return of wealth-tax under s. 14 of the Act. The petitioner was liable to pay wealth-tax from the assessment years 1967-68 onwards and the wealth return was to be filed for each of the assessment years before June 30. The petitioner filed the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 on August 6, 1970, while the wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1970-71 was filed on January 1, 1972. After the assessment was completed, the WTO commenced penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act for delay in filing the returns. Notices were served upon the petitioner, but the assessee failed to appear before the WTO, and ultimately on February 2, 1979, the Officer imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the assessee had preferred an appeal against the order of imposition of penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the same was allowed by order dated September 15, 1983, in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, and the penalty imposed under s. 18(1)(c) was set aside. Shri Ganesh submits that the assessee desires to challenge the penalty imposed for the assessment year 1968-69 in this petition, but I decline permission to the learned counsel to agitate the issue, because the appeal preferred by the assessee in respect of that assessment order is pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and in these circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 18 for failure without reasonable cause to furnish the return of net wealth which such person was required to furnish under subsection (1) of section 14, or (ii) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 18, if he is satisfied that such person, (a) in the case referred to in clause (i), has, prior to the issue of notice to him under subsection (2) of section 14, voluntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosure of his net wealth, and (b) in the case referred to in clause (ii), has, prior to the detection by the Wealth-tax Officer, of the concealment of particulars of assets or of the inaccuracy of particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner has declined to waive the penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act in his discretion, and in my judgment, it is not open to disturb such discretionary order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction is not meant to disturb each and every discretionary order passed by the authority empowered to do so under the statute. In my judgment, the grievance of the petitioner has no merit and deserves to be repelled. Shri Ganesh relied upon the decisions in Anjanappa v. CWT [1980] 124 ITR 433 (Kar) and Shareef Ahmad v. CWT [1979] 117 ITR 35 (All), but, in my judgment, these decisions have no bearing on the issue involved in the petition. The order passed by the Commissioner is purely a discretionary order and it is not possi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
