TMI Blog1975 (4) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of net wealth for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 the penalty for every month during which the default continued after April 1, 1969, is to be computed under the law as it obtained on the 1st April of each assessment year alone, that is, under section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1969?" The returns for the two years 1964-65 and 1965-66 should have been filed by the assessee on or before June 30, 1964, and June 30, 1965, respectively. Admittedly, this had not been done. The returns for the two years were filed only on March 30, 1970. Originally section 18(1) of the Wealth-tax Act stood in these terms: " 18. Penalty for concealment.--(1) If the Wealth-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , etc.--(1) If the Wealth-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner or Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person-- (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 14 or by notice given under sub-section (2) of section 14 or section 17, or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by sub-section (1) of section 14 or by such notice, as the case may be; or (b) has without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice, under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of section 16; or (c) has concealed the particulars of any assets or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order in writing, direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty-- (i) in the cases referred to in clause (a), in addition to the amount of wealth-tax, if any, payable by him, a sum, for every month during which the default continued, equal to one-half per cent. of-- (A) the net wealth assessed under section 16 as reduced by the amount specified in sub-section (1A), or (B) the net wealth assessed under section 17, where assessment has been made under that section as reduced by-- (1) the net wealth, if any, assessed previously under section 16 or section 17, or (2) the amount specified in sub-section (1A), whichever is greater; but not exceeding, in the aggregate, an amount equal to the net wealth assessed under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th. Whether an act or omission is an offence or not should be determined with reference to the state of affairs that obtained at the time of the commission of the act or at the time the omission took place. This had been succinctly stated by Sir Lionel Leach, Chief justice of Madras, in the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vedlapatla Veera Venkataramiah [1943] 11 ITR 308 (Mad) and in Full Bench decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. Ahamed [1974] 95 ITR 599 (Ker) [FB] we stated the same principle and also referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vedlapalla Veera Venkataramiah [1943] 11 ITR 308 (Mad) with approval. So, the normal rule is that an amendment which took effect subsequent to an act or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plete had been changed into a continuing offence and visited with consequences every month for continued default even by the amending Act 46 of 1964. Since section 18(1)(i) uses the expression " continued default ", we think that for the purpose of section 18(1)(i), as amended, the original default itself must be one which occurred after section 18(1)(i) came into existence. If the original default, the failure to file the return within the date stipulated under the Act, had not occurred on or after April 1, 1965 (the date from which the amendment introduced to section 18 by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964 came into operation), we think section 18(1)(i) as amended has no application in determining the question of the penalty to be impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, has clearly changed the nature of the offence and has imposed a penalty for every month during which the default continued. The principle of the decision in Biswanath Ghosh v. Income-tax Officer [1974] 95 ITR 372 (Orissa) would, therefore, apply to the penalty to be imposed for the year 1965-56. We wish to add only one more word. The year of assessment has no relevancy in deciding the quantum of the penalty to be imposed or in deciding which section, the original one or the section as amended, should be applied. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us by stating that penalty should be imposed under the original section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 46 of 1964 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
