RAMACHANDRAN N Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order, exhibit P-7, the first respondent, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, in exercise of his discretion under Sub-section (2A) of Section 18 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as it then stood, waived the penalty levied under Section 18(1)(a) in respect of the assessment year 1972-73, but only reduced the penalty in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. In respect of the last two years, the reduction was by Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 25,000, respectively. The reason stated by the Commissioner for this differential treatment was that for the assessment year 1972-73, for which penalty was wholly waived, the petitioner filed returns within 10 months after the due date and, therefore, there was no inordinate or unconscionable delay. For the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the delay was 64 months and 52 months, respectively. What apparently weighed with the Commissioner in the exercise of his discretion by waiver in respect of one year and reduction in respect of the other two years was, therefore, the relative length of delay.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, Shri C.M. Devan, submits that the Commissioner did not exercise his discretion judiciously. COUNSEL says that Sub-section (2A) of Section 18 postulates that in cases where the Commissioner is satisfied that the assessee has made full disclosure of his wealth voluntarily and in good faith, he should, in his discretion, either reduce or waive the amount of minimum penalty. In the present case, the Commissioner waived it in one case, but only reduced it in the other two cases, although in all the three cases, the disclosure was admittedly voluntarily made and there was no lack of good faith.