Skip to content


indrasen Bhoot Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberM.C.C. No. 116 of 1979
Judge
Reported in[1982]138ITR758(MP)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 27(1); Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 - Sections 18(1) and 18(3)
Appellantindrasen Bhoot
RespondentCommissioner of Wealth-tax
Excerpt:
- - 1971-72?' 2. the material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of case, briefly are as follows :the assessee had filed returns for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. at the time of making the assessment, the wto found that the assessee had concealed certain income and had also failed to furnish particulars of his income as required by law......rs. 1,00,000 and rs. 60,000, respectively, for the two years in question. against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal. it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the iac had no jurisdiction to levy the penalties in question by his order dated 23rd march, 1977, because, after the amendment of the act with effect from 1st april, 1976, the jurisdiction to impose penalty vested in the wto and not in the iac. it was urged that the impugned orders, which were passed by the iac on 23rd march, 1977, were, therefore, without jurisdiction. this contention was not upheld by the tribunal. the tribunal, however, reduced the amount of penalty to a sum of rs. 50,000 only. at the instance of the assessee and the department, thetribunal has referred the aforesaid.....
Judgment:

Sohani, J.

1. By this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion :

' (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the IAC had jurisdiction to levy penalty for the A.Y. 1970-71 after the amendment of Section 18(3) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 ?

(ii) If the answer to question No. (i) is in the affirmative, whether the penalty upheld by the Tribunal at Rs. 50,000 was the minimum penalty imposable under the law relating to quantum law applicable in the case ?

(iii) Having held that penalty provisions under Section 18(1)(c) were attracted, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty was leviable for the A.Y. 1971-72?'

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of case, briefly are as follows : The assessee had filed returns for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. At the time of making the assessment, the WTO found that the assessee had concealed certain income and had also failed to furnish particulars of his income as required by law. Penalty proceedings were, therefore, initiated against the assessee and forwarded to the IAC as the amount of penalty exceeded a sum of Rs. 25,000 in each case. The IAC, after considering the material on record, imposed penalties amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 60,000, respectively, for the two years in question. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the IAC had no jurisdiction to levy the penalties in question by his order dated 23rd March, 1977, because, after the amendment of the Act with effect from 1st April, 1976, the jurisdiction to impose penalty vested in the WTO and not in the IAC. It was urged that the impugned orders, which were passed by the IAC on 23rd March, 1977, were, therefore, without jurisdiction. This contention was not upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, reduced the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 50,000 only. At the instance of the assessee and the Department, theTribunal has referred the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion.

3. At the time of hearing of this reference, learned counsel for the Department and the assessee agreed that the date on which the case regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the WTO to the IAC was material as the answer to the first question referred to this court would depend on that date. As there is no reference to that date in the statement of the case, this is a fit case, in our opinion, where the Tribunal should be directed to furnish a supplementary statement of the case.

4. The Tribunal is accordingly directed to send a supplementary statement of the case and to state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the WTO to the IAC in the instant case. After the receipt of such statement, the reference shall be fixed for further hearing.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //