COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. PRAG NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question :

(2.) For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee, an individual, filed the return on February 8, 1967. Proceedings were taken under section 17 of the Act in response to which another return was filed on December 1, 1971. Observing that there was concealment of assets by the assessee, proceedings were taken for levying penalty under section 18 of the Act, However, since the penalty imposed exceeded the jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer, as it then stood, the proceedings were made over to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The latter passed orders on January 4, 1977, imposing penalty of Rs. 53,395 under section 18(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal and it was contended that, on the date the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed the orders, the relevant provision contained in section 18(3) was amended and that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lost the jurisdiction to impose the penalty. By virtue of the amendment, the power to impose penalty was given to the Wealth-tax Officer irrespective of the quantum of penalty imposable though of course subject to the approval of the higher authority. This point was accepted by the Tribunal and the penalty quashed. Thereupon, the present reference was obtained.

(3.) The question raised herein is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this court in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215. Though the said decision is contrary to the view taken by certain other High Courts in the country, the said decision is binding upon us on the above point Accordingly, following the same, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.