TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in that direction ? Shrimati Parkash Devi, petitioner, filed voluntary returns under the Act for assessment years 1970-71 to 1977-78. She took the anticipatory step of filing an application under s. 18B of the Act to the Commissioner on the assumption that failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the returns of net wealth which she was required to furnish under subs. (1) of s. 14, would attract the penalty under s.: 18 ; for the returns which she filed voluntarily on April 22, 1978, she paid the full amount of the total tax due on the returned wealth. When the WTO framed assessment and created additional demands, these too she met on July 6, 1978. The WTO then initiated proceedings against her for levy of penalty under s. 18(1)(a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii), has, prior to the detection by the Wealth-tax Officer, of the concealment of particulars of assets or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of any asset or debt in respect of which the penalty is imposable, voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of such particulars, and also has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessment of his net wealth and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year ....... .." It is plain therefrom that in the instant case we are concerned with sub-cl. (i) pertaining to the discretion of the Commissioner and sub-cl. (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to remain uninfluenced by extraneous factors like the assessee being an old assessee under the I.T. Act is well settled and the converse deprecated in the decisions of this court in Dr. Paramjit Singh Grewal v. CIT, [1980] 125 ITR 549 (P H), Major Naranjan Singh v. CWT (C.W. P. No. 582 of 1980 decided by S. S. Kang J. on 28th April, 1981,reported in [1982] 138 ITR 88). Similar was the view of the Allahabad High Court in Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. CWT, [1975] 98 ITR 359. Precedents on that aspect need not be multiplied. All these are cases on the side of pre-satisfaction stage and do not squarely cover the point in issue. We are confronted in the present case with the post-satisfaction stage. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Jullundur, in connection with her income-tax proceedings in respect of assessment years 1971-72 to 1977-78, it was some time in September, 1976, that she came to know that voluntary returns under the Income-tax Act, had to be filed by her. In spite of her knowledge about her liability to file voluntary returns under the Income-tax Act, in respect of assessment years 1971-72 to 1977-78, she did not care to ascertain her liability under the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the above assessment years and in fact filed the returns as late as 22nd April, 1978. Having regard to the above facts and other circumstances, I accordingly direct that the penalty imposable/imposed under section 18(1)(a) shall be reduced to 10% of that imposable in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee the gravity of the default, the loss occasioned to the Revenue by the assessee not filing the return in time, and the extent of tax withheld. These factors are only illustrative but not exhaustive, just like in criminal cases judge while imposing a sentence on the accused who is found guilty of an offence takes into consideration several factors apart from the fact that he has committed the offence in question, the Commissioner should take into consideration all other relevant factors while reducing or waiving the penalty imposed or imposable under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. [section 18(2A) of the old Act is now section 18B]." This case was followed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Seetha Mahalakshmi Ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfaction must compel the Commissioner to influence his discretion both in isolation and in conjunction with other relevant factors to exercise his discretion to waive or reduce penalty. Patently, those factors had receded to the background, and altogether ruled out in the manner in which the Commissioner exercised his discretion while passing the impugned order. Necessarily, there has not been a proper application of mind requiring the impugned order to be quashed and asking him to re-determine the cause in the light of the foregoing observations. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Commissioner (annex. P-2) is quashed partially, preserving the satisfaction stage, directing him to re-hear the petitioner only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
