CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1984) 02 P&H CK 0117

Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sham Ice Oil and General Mills

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 February 1984 · Citation: (1984) 17 TAXMAN 329

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J · M.M. Punchhi, J
CASE NUMBER
WT Reference No. 10 of 1978

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 364 words

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This wealth-tax reference has been made u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (''the Act''). Briefly, the facts are that the respondent is a HUF. It could file a voluntary return of wealth by 30-6-1964. The return was, however, filed on 11-12-1972 in compliance with a notice u/s 17 of the Act. The assessment was completed determining the net wealth at Rs. 2,53,340 as per assessment order dated 6-3-1973. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings for the delay of 98 months. It is alleged that since the assessee did not offer any satisfactory explanation, the WTO levelled a penalty of Rs. 11,868 as under :

1.

Penalty for the period 30-9-1964 to 31-3-1969 (54 months) at the rate of 50 per cent of the wealth-tax payable-Rs. 133.

2.

Penalty for the period 1-4-1969 to 11-12-1972 (44 months) at the rate of 22 per cent of the net assessable wealth-Rs. 11,735.

2.

On appeal, the AAC reduced the penalty to Rs. 133 only. The department went up in appeal before the Tribunal which affirmed the view of the AAC and dismissed the same. At the instance of the Commissioner, the following two questions have been referred for decision of this Court :

1.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that penalty was leviable in this case under the law before it was amended by the Finance Act, 1969, with effect from 1-4-1969 ?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the default in filing the return on the due date was complete on 30-6-1964 and that penalty is imposable according to the law in force on that date only ?

3.

It is conceded by Mr. Ashok Bhan that the matter has since been decided by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Amritsar Vs. Suresh Seth, and the instant case is covered by the aforesaid decision. In view of the ratio of the said case, we decide both the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No order as to costs.