TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e served on the assessee on 26th of October, 1969. The returns were filed on 18th September, 1970. The assessments were completed on 30th January. 1971, and the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedigs under section of the Act for delay in filing the returns. The returns of wealth filed were belated. Against the notice under section 18(1)(a) dated 30th January, 1971, the assessee filed an application under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act for waiver of penalty before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow, which was rejected by him. After the rejection of the application for waiver of penalty the Wealth-tax Officer issued a fresh show-cause notice on 28th August, 1971, which was served on the assessee but he did not appear nor d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 on the scale in force prior to the Finance Act, 1969 ? " On the findings recorded by the Tribunal the only question that arises for consideration is whether penalty has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions contained in Finance Act, 1969, or as it stood before the amendment. It has been vehemently urged by Mr. Deokinandan, counsel for the department, that once the return was not filed a default occurred in the eye of law and this continued till the assessee did not file the return and as the proceedings were initiated by filing of the return at a time when the Finance Act, 1969, came into force, the law applicable in the case of the assessee would be the law as it was amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntemplated and as such there was an infringement and it attracted the penal clause. The breach and the application of law were simultaneous. It is a different thing that the assessee may have been able to explain and may satisfy that there was valid ground for not complying with the provisions of the law within the time allowed but none the less the default was there. Penalty provisions are quasi-criminal in nature. As such it is imperative that they should be construed strictly. The law operative on the date when the infringement takes place is the law applicable unless it is made punishable ex post facto. If the argument of the department is accepted it shall make the operation of the amended law retrospective when there are no such words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution was rejected. The other decisions related to the levy of interest under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The scope of the two sections 139, relating to interest, and 271, relating to penalty (in pari materia to section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act) are entirely different. The last decision, Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC) was concerned with the validity of section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act. It was held that the provisions were not hit by article 14 of the Constitution of India and the legislature in fixing the date, i.e., 1st April, 1962, for the applicability of the amended and unamended law did not act arbitrarily. The other four decisions were in support of the submissions as to what is mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
