COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. PREMLATA C LUNKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE eight reference applications have been filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal, under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and raise common facts and common questions of law for our consideration. In all these eight applications the undernoted common questions of law have been proposed for our direction to the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the same for our answer :

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that in Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 297 of 1988 and 298 of 1988, the assessee is Smt. Premlata C. Lunkad, Indore. The assessment years are 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively. The returns under the Wealth-tax Act were required to be filed on July 31, 1974, and July 31, 1975, respectively. These were, however, filed on October 11, 1979. Regular assessments were completed on January 25, 1983, and January 27, 1983. It was held that the delay in the submission of the returns was without any reasonable cause. The Wealth-tax Officer, therefore, ordered levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act by order dated March 22, 1985. The quantum of penalty for the assessment year 1974-75 was Rs. 52,515 and Rs. 31,428 for the assessment year 1975-76. The provisions relating to the computation of penalty under this provision were, however, amended by the. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976. Prior to the amendment in 1976 and since April 1, 1969, the penalty was required to be computed at the rate of 1/2 per cent of net wealth for every month for the period during which the default continued subject to the limit of net wealth as assessed. After the amendment, the penalty for default is leviable at the sum equal to 2 per cent. of the assessed tax for every month of default. The Wealth-tax Officer assessed the penalty on the basis of the unamended provisions. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeals on applying the ratio of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 reduced the penalty holding that the amended law was to be applied for computing the quantum of the penalty. The Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the order, the Commissioner filed the application under Section 27(1) of the Act which was rejected. The Commissioner thereafter filed the application under Section 27(3) of the Act.

(3.) MADANLAL Haveliram, Indore, is the assessee in the remaining miscellaneous civil cases which pertain to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76. In these cases also the assessee filed the returns late. The Wealth-tax Officer imposed the penalty according to the unamended provisions. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, reversed the order and applied the amended provisions. The Department filed the appeals. The Tribunal agreed with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330. The Department then filed applications under Section 27(1) of the Act which were rejected. Thereafter the Commissioner has filed these reference applications under Section 27(3) of the aforesaid Act.