RASIKLAL RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in each of these special civil applications are more or less the same and the petitioner in each of these three special civil applications are also inter related and the facts of one are on the same lines as the facts of the other two petitions. We will, therefore, dispose of all the three matters by this common judgment. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1518 of 1975, has been assessed to income tax and wealth tax and is being assessed under those Acts for the last several years. The wealth tax return for the asst. year 1971 72 was filed by the petitioner on 10th June, 1971. In that return, the petitioner had shown a sum of Rs. 45,122.17 as the amount lying as fixed deposit with N. R. Patel & Co. This return was submitted to the WTO concerned, and along with the said return, the petitioner had also filed a certificate issued by M/s Nalinbhai R. Patel & Co. dt. 31st March, 1971, showing the amount of the deposit. In token of the submission of the return along with the said certificate, the WTO concerned issued the necessary receipt. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not know at that time that there was a mistake in the certificate issued by N. R. Patel & Co., and without being aware of the mistake in the certificate, the return was submitted along with that certificate. An order was passed by the WTO on 23rd Dec.,1971, in respect of the asst. year 1971 72. Thereafter, in due course of time, the return for the asst. year 1972 73 was required to be filed and, at that time, a certificate issued by N. R. Patel & Co. in respect of the deposit amount lying to the credit of the petitioner in the books of account of that firm was required to be filed. When that certificate was checked, a discrepancy was noticed by the tax consultant of the petitioner and then it was realised that a revised return for asst. year 1971 72, should be filed. On 9th Aug., 1972, the petitioner filed the revised return for the asst. year 1971 72, on realising the mistake which had been committed in the earlier return. On 14th Aug., 1972, the petitioner applied under S. 18(2A) for condonation of the mistake and thereafter, on 6th Sept., 1974, the petitioner applied to the CWT concerned under S. 18(2A) of the WT Act for waiver of the penalty because, according to the petitioner, the conditions required for the exercise of discretion were satisfied in that particular case. On 31st March, 1975, the CWT passed an order in the following terms :

(2.) I find that the conditions of S. 18(2A) of the WT Act are satisfied in this case. Looking to this fact and other facts of this case, I reduce the minimum penalty leviable under S. 18(1)(a) to Rs. 7,500." At the relevant time, the provisions for penalty in the WT Act, 1957, were as follows :

(3.) In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785, the question before the Supreme Court was in the context of the Tariff Act and the decision of the Assistant Collector of Customs in the context of the Tariff Act. In para. 6 of the judgment at page 1789, Bhagwati J., speaking for the Supreme Court, has dealt with this question of reasons having to be given. He has pointed out that the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India disposed of the proceedings before them without giving reasons. He observed (p. 1789) :