ROY T K Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : These references involve common questions of law; as such this judgment will dispose of all of them. As the facts and periods of assessments in WT Ref. No. 5/75 are more comprehensive, it will be more convenient to refer to the material facts of this reference first.

(2.) THE assessment years involved in this reference are from 1963-64 to 1968-69. Admittedly, the assessee was liable to pay wealth-tax for all these years. He was required under S. 14(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"), to furnish to the WTO a return in the prescribed form. In this case, he did not do so. THE WTO issued notices to the assessee under S. 14(2) of the Act and the notices were served on him. He did not comply with the notices. THE W.T.O. also issued notices on the assessee under S. 16(4) of the Act. THEy were also not complied with. In the circumstances, he completed on 31st Oct., 1970, the assessments for all the aforesaid assessment years under s. 16(5) of the Act. He made the assessments as follows : THE WTO also initiated penalty proceedings under S. 18(1)(a) of the Act and the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied. THE assessee showed cause but it was not accepted in its entirety by the WTO, who, as a result, imposed various penalties for different periods of defaults. THE periods of default were found by him to be 88, 76, 64, 52, 40 and 28 months for the assessment years from 1963-64 to 1968-69, respectively. THE WTO levied penalty for the years 1963-64 to 1968-69, under S. 18 (1)(a)(i) of the Act as amended by the WT (Amendment) Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the "1964 Amendment"), which was effective from 1st April, 1965. THEreafter, penalty was levied under S. 18(1)(a)(i) of the Act as amended by S. 24 of the Finance Act of 1969 (hereinafter called the "1969 Amendment").

(3.) AN application having been made by the assessee for a reference, the Tribunal has made this Assessment year Net wealth assessed Tax payable reference under S. 27(1) of the Act and has referred the following question to us for opinion :