LAWS(DLH)-1990-3-44

JAGAT SINGH Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

Decided On March 16, 1990
JAGAT SINGH Appellant
V/S
WEALTH TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I proceed to decide these eight criminal revision petitions by this order as common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions.

(2.) Four complaints against Jagat Siligh, petitioner in four criminal revision petitions and four complaint against Jai Singh, petitioner in other four criminal revision petitions, have been brought by the Wealth lax Officer for their prosecution for offence punishable under Section 35-B of the Wealth Tax Act pertaining to their not wilfully filing wealth tax returns in due time for different assessment years. I will give the facts of one of such complaints as the facts are similar in other complaints. It has been mentioned in the complaint that the accused had failed to file his return of net wealth as required under Section 14(1) of the Wealth Tax Act (for short 'the Act') in respect of particular assessment year and the Wealth Tax Officer had issued a notice under Section 14(2) of the Act to the accused requiring him to file the return within 35 days of the receipt of the notice but despite the fact that the notice was duly served, the accused failed to comply with the same and an application of the accused for seeking extention of time for filing of the return was rejected by the Wealth Tax Officer. Then, the facts have been given with regard to the net taxable wealth of the accused and the assessment made in that respect which wasRs.3,03,09,870. The petitioners having been summoned to face the prosecution in the aforesaid complaints have chosen to file these criminal revision petitions for quashment of the complaint. The complaints pertain to four assessment years viz. 1975-76, 76-77, 77-78 and 78-79. It is admitted fact that the wealth tax returns were filed by these petitioners before the completion of the assessment proceedings for the said assessment years and necessary assessment orders have been made on March 19, 1980 and directions had been also given for initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 18(1) (a), 18(l)(c) & Section 15-B of the Act but. in fact, I am told that no such penalty proceedings have been initiated or any penalties have been imposed on these petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Lalit Bhasin has made following ubmissions in support of the aforesaid petitions, firstly, that the wealth tax returns having been filed bt the petitioners before the completion of the assessment proceedings for the aforesaid assessment years in consonance with Section 15 of the Act the inference should be drawn that as valid returns had been filed there was no wilful default made by the petitioners so as to attract the renal provisions of Section 35-B of the Act. He has urged that the words "due time." appearing in Section 35-B of the Act should be construed to mean the time permitted by Section 15 or the Act for filing the said return's. Secondly, he has argued that as the penalty proceedings have been directed to be initiated but, in fact, no such penalty proceedings being brought or penalties being imposed the penal provisions of Section 35-B of the Act cannot be invoked. Thirdly, he has argued that there has been no wilful default on the part of the petitioners inasmuch as their explanations for not filing the wealth tax returns in due time are of the same nature as had been accepted by the income tax authorities while condoning the delay made in filinig the income-tax returns and the penalties imposed in late filing of the income-tax returns having been cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, for parity of reasons, such explanations should have been accepted for condoning the delay made by the petitioners, if any, in filing the wealth tax return". He has also argued that as the authorities could have levied interest on the delayed payments and could have imposed penalties under the Act, it was not a case of any evasion of duty on the wealth of the petitioners and thus, prosecution of the petitioners under Section 35-B was ill-conceived. Lastly. he has argued that the petitioners were wealth tax assessees known to the authorities and there could not be any wilful default on their part in not filing the wealth fax returns in due time.