PARKASH DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pristinely legal question which calls for determination in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the Commissioner, while reducing or waiving the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the W. T. Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), can ignore his recorded satisfaction to the statutory conditions embodied in Section 18b, while exercising discretion in that direction ?

(2.) SHRIMATI Parkash Devi, petitioner, filed voluntary returns under the Act for assessment years 1970-71 to 1977-78. She took the anticipatory step of filing an application under Section 18b of the Act to the Commissioner on the assumption that failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the returns of net wealth which she was required to furnish under Sub-section (1) of Section 14, would attract the penalty under Section 18 ; for the returns which she filed voluntarily on April 22, 1978, she paid the full amount of the total tax due on the returned wealth. When the WTO framed assessment and created additional demands, these too she met on July 6, 1978. The WTO then initiated proceedings against her for levy of penalty under Section 18 (1) (a) of the Act as the returns fifed by her were late. On the application submitted by the petitioner, the Commissioner, vide his order dated 20th May, 1981, held that the satisfying of the conditions set forth in Section 18b of the Act were accomplished. However, the Commissioner while opting either to waive the penalty or reduce it chose to impose penalty at 10 per cent. of that imposable in respect of each of the assessment years 1970-71 to 1977-78, vide order, annex. P-2. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 18b is relevant for our purpose which need be extracted :