COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SAVITHRI G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal dealt with two wealth -tax appeals for the assessment years 1968 -69 and 1969 -70. Against the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1968 -69, the Commissioner of Wealth -tax has come up on reference, on the following question

(2.) THE facts relating to this question are as follows The assessee, a cine -artist, should have filed a wealth -tax return for the year 1968 -69 by 30th June, 1968. She, however, filed the return only on 23rd March, 1970. The Wealth -tax Officer completed the assessment on 27th April, 1970, and initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act, for delay in submission of return. The assessee gave an explanation that she was not well and that her secretary, who was in charge of the income -tax matters for 15 years, had left her some months previously. She has also stated that her chartered accountant was not in Madras for a couple of months, and that she filed the return, subsequently with the help of the said chartered accountant. The explanation was not accepted and a penalty of Rs. 42, 974 was levied. The penalty levied was confirmed, on appeal, by the AAC. One of the contentions taken before the Tribunal was that the penalty should have been assessed only with reference to the provisions that were in force on the date when the return was due, namely, 30th June, 1968. The Appellate Tribunal accepted this contention urged on behalf of the assessee and that is why the Commissioner has brought the matter under referenceThe question has now been concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT, in which it has been held that the law in force at the time when the default was committed would govern the quantum of penalty to be levied. As seen already, in the present case, the default was committed on 1st July 1968, and the law as on that date was the one applicable, and the Tribunal has acted rightly, in confirming the levy of penalty, only in accordance with the provisions as then in force.

(3.) AS indicated earlier, though, in accordance with the provisions in force at the time when the assessment was completed, the orders levying penalty could have been passed only by 26th April, 1972, there was an amendment of the law, in the meantime, that is, before the expiry of the said period of limitation. It is now well settled that if before the limitation period expired, the period of limitation is extended, the limitation provision, being a procedural one, the extended period of limitation would apply to such proceedings. This has been laid down in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, which has been recently followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical and Turning Works. The result is that the question referred, at the instance of the assessee, is to be answered as follows The levy of penalty is not barred by time, in view of the amendment of s. 18(5) of the W.T. Act There will be no order as to costs in both matters.