COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH Vs. KANAK CHANDRA SARMA, JORHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - These applications are under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The prayer in these applications is to call for a reference on the following question of law which has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal:

(2.) Though the Tribunal was satisfied that the aforesaid question of law did arise out of the order passed by it, the prayer for referring the question to this Court was rejected on the ground that the aforesaid two provisions are independent and mutually exclusive. The Tribunal said so keeping in view the pronouncements of the Delhi High Court in Shakuntala Mehra Vs. CWT, (1976) 102 ITR 301 and of Madras High Court in K.C Vedadri Vs. CIT, (1973) 87 ITR 76 . Shri Choudhury appearing for the Revenue has submitted that though the aforesaid question might have been decided by other High Courts in favour of the assessee that can be no ground to reject the reference inasmuch as the question has to be determined by this Court having jurisdiction over the taxing authorities of this region.

(3.) Dr. Saraf appearing for the assessee however submits that the answer to the aforesaid question being self evident this Court may not call for a reference. In trying to satisfy us that the answer to the point of law posed in the aforesaid question is self-evident our attention has been invited by the learned counsel to the requirements of sections 18(1)(a) and 18(2A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for short the Act. It is submitted that while deciding the question of penalty under section 18(1)(a) what has to be looked into is whether the assessee had failed to furnish the return without reasonable cause. While deciding the matter under section 18(2A) of the Act the Commissioner is however not required to examine the reasonableness or otherwise of the cause for delay but has to be guided by the facts whether the assessee had voluntarily and on good faith made full disclosure of his net wealth. Counsel submits that these are two independent provisions and are mutually exclusive. Though the submission advanced by Dr. Saraf is cogent and appears to be prima facie acceptable but as there is no decision of this Court on the point at issue, we have thought it fit to call for a reference on the question of law noted by the learned Tribunal. We therefore direct the appellate Tribunal to state the case to this Court and to take action as required by section 27(3) of the Act.