PURSHOTTAM THACKERSEY Vs. ANANTARAMA AYYAR K N CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of the order dt. 2nd May, 1979, passed by the CWT, Bombay, in exercise of the powers under S. 18B of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are as under :

(2.) THE petitioner preferred two petitions under S. 18B of the Act before the CWT seeking waiver of penalties levied under S. 18(1)(c) and under S. 18(1)(a) of the Act by the WTO. As regards the penalty imposed under S. 18(1)(c) of the Act, the CWT by his order dt. 2nd May, 1979, reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,500 for each of the three relevant assessment years. The penalties imposed under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act were not waived. The order passed by the CWT is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) TURNING to the penalty imposed under S. 18(1)(a) of the Act, Shri Ganesh did not dispute that the returns were filed beyond the prescribed time, and the learned counsel accepted that there was nothing on the record to indicate that there was any reasonable cause for filing the returns late. The learned counsel urged that though the returns were filed beyond the prescribed period, still it is not in dispute that the returns were filed before the notice under Sub S. (2) of S. 14 of the Act was issued to the assessee. It was urged that the CWT, in these circumstances, ought to have exercised his discretion and waived the penalty. It is not possible to accept this submission. The relevant part of S. 18B reads as under :