BHUWANKUMAR BHANDARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner assails the order dated December 9, 1999 (annexure PIT), passed by the first respondent, Commissioner of Wealth -tax, Indore, by which the said respondent has rejected the revision and declined the claim of the petitioner for deleting the interest charged under Section 17B of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957.

(2.) THE facts not in dispute before this Court are that the petitioner is an assessee under the Wealth -tax Act and for the assessment year 1992 -93, she was required to furnish return by July 31, 1992 for the year ending on March 31, 1992. The petitioner has submitted that on account of the inadvertent lapse of her accountant, the said return could not be filed by the due date but the amount of tax along with interest thereon as required under Section 17B of the Wealth -tax Act, was deposited on March 30, 1994. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioner has submitted exhibit P/3 indicating the calculations and the amount of tax and interest worked out by her.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that although it was stressed before the assessing authority that the amount of wealth -tax having been deposited along with the interest chargeable thereon for the period of delay till the said amount of tax was deposited, the interest under Section 17B would not be chargeable till the date of the filing of the return. The Assessing Officer charged tax at the rate of 2 per cent, up to the date of filing of the return under Section 17B of the Wealth -tax Act. A revision filed against the said order of the assessing authority has been dismissed by the Commissioner of Wealth -tax vide order dated December 9, 1999 (annexure PIT). Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that on rigid and dogmatic construction of the provision, the decision of the authorities with regard to calculation of interest beyond the period the amount had already been deposited is illegal and against the legislative intent and the order (annexure PIT), therefore, deserves to be quashed.