MANORAMADEVI AGRAWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the under noted question of law arising out of the orders passed in ITA Nos. 93 to 96 and 100 to 104/Ind/89 on the applications registered as RA Nos. 19 to 22 and 26 to 30/Ind/90 under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (for short the Act), for our opinion:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is assessed as an individual. The years of assessment are 1977 78 to 1980 81 for penalties under S. 18(1)(c) of the Act and for 1977 78 to 1981 82 for penalties under S. 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee was served with a notice under S. 17 of the Act requiring her to file the returns of wealth tax for the asst. yrs. 1977 78 to 1981 82 and onwards. The notices were served on 3rd March, 1986. The assessee filed the return of income on 14th March, 1986 and paid the self assessment tax. The assessments for all the five years were completed by a consolidated order dt. 31st Dec., 1986. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings under S. 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Act. The penalties were levied as particularised in the statement of the case. The assessee contended that the Amnesty Scheme was in force till 31st March, 1986, and she was planning to avail of the scheme to submit the returns. Before this could be done, she received the notice under S. 17(1) of the Act. The returns were filed on 14th March, 1986. The WTO held that the returns were not liable to be treated as voluntary and levied the penalty. The assessee filed the appeals which were dismissed by the Dy. CWT (A) (Annex B/1 and B/2). The assessee then filed the appeals before the Tribunal. She placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 423, dt. 26th June, 1985 [printed at (1985) 47 CTR (TLT) 30] and Circular No. 432 [printed at (1986) 50 CTR (St) 1] and 441 dt. 15th Nov., 1986 [printed at (1986) 50 CTR (St) 2] and contended that she was entitled to obtain the benefit of the scheme and was thus, not liable to suffer penalty. The Tribunal, however, negatived the contention and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved, the assessee filed applications under S. 27(1) of the Act. The Tribunal then stated the case and referred the aforesaid question of law for our opinion.

(3.) FOLLOWING points are not in dispute :