NARAIN DAS JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following four questions :

(2.) THE assessee is an individual. THE assessment year concerned is 1971-72. THE return was due on or before June 30, 1971. It was actually filed on February 28, 1973. For this delay in filing the return, proceedings were initiated under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for levy of penalty. THE assessee submitted his explanation after considering which the Wealth-tax Officer levied the penalty.

(3.) THE second question relates to the alleged defect in the notice issued under Section 18(2). THE argument is that the notice does not specify whether the default was under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 14. We do not think that the notice can be termed as invalid or void on the ground. Learned counsel relies on a decision of the Kerala High Court in N. N. Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228, but, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the contents of the notice concerned in that case are different from the contents of the notice in this case. In that case, the notice contained several alternative grounds and the irrelevant grounds were not scored out. THEre is no such defect in the notice in this case nor is it shown that the assessee has suffered any prejudice or handicap on that account. It cannot, therefore, be said that either the notice was defective or that the order passed in pursuance thereof is illegal on that ground. Question No. 2 is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.