SHANTHA DEVI Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are by the same assessee involving identical facts and points for determination.

(2.) IN the first four writ petitions the challenge is to an order made by CWT on an application filed by the petitioner under s. 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dismissing the said application by his order dated January 28, 1975. The application was for waiver of the penalty imposable under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. A similar application had been filed in relation to the assessment year 1972-73. The Commissioner dismissed that application also, following his order for the earlier years. That order is dated February 12, 1975, and is the subject matter of W.P. No. 2785/75. Facts are not in dispute. The returns for all these five assessment years had been filed on December 29, 1972. They had been filed before any notice under s. 14(2) or s. 17 of the Act had been issued. The assessments were completed by the WTO on January 22, 1973. It is pertinent to point out that the net wealth as declared by the assessee was accepted by WTO and the assessment completed accordingly. The WTO issued notices under s. 18(2) of the Act to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for the belated filing of the returns. The assessee sent a reply dated January 30, 1975, inter alia, pleading that the returns had not been filed earlier bona fide believing that there was no taxable wealth especially as a considerable portion of the assets belonging to her consisted of jewellery and these were excluded from the computation of net wealth. She further stated that consequent on the amendment of the W.T. Act, retrospectively, she had been advised to file the returns and accordingly she had done. She further pleaded that there was absolutely no suppression of any wealth and she had co-operated with the department in the finalisation of the assessment and returns had been filed voluntarily and bona fide. She accordingly prayed that the penalty proceedings should be dropped. She also filed petitions before the Commissioner under s. 18(2A) of the Act for waiver of the penalty. IN that application also she stated that she had filed returns soon after the Act was amended in regard to jewellery and other articles intended for personal use and the returns had been filed voluntarily and she had co-operated with the department in finalising the assessment and had declared full and true particulars of her wealth and had paid the tax. She represented that in these circumstances the requirements of s. 18(2A) of the Act had been satisfied and, therefore, the penalty leviable may be waived.

(3.) IT is contended by Sri. G. Saragan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the conclusion of the Commissioner that the returns were not voluntary and bona fide is untenable, and the only reason given for rejecting the applications is without any substance.