RAM PIARI Vs. WEALTH TAX; OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Piari widow of late Shri Amar Nath resident of Chandigarh; has moved this petition. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging her prosecution launched under Section 35-B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 pertaining to assessment year 1980-81.

(2.) Briefly the facts, as alleged are that the Wealth-tax Officer, Ward-2, Chandigarh has instituted a complaint on 27-3-1991 which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, wherein, it has been alleged that during the year, previous to the assessment year 1980-81, Ram Piari who alleges herself to be an illiterate lady enjoyed taxable wealth. She was expected to file a return on or before 30-6-80, but in reality it has been filed after more than 4 years, i.e. on 23-8-1984, causing a delay of 49 months. It was found that she was liable to pay wealth tax in the sum of Rs. 5666.00 and in this regard an order was passed on 29-2-1988; that since there was a default of delay, a penalty of Rs. 5550.00 was imposed. The wealth-tax as well as the penalty has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) Chandigarh on 17-8-88; that since return was not filed for the assessment year 1980-81 within the statutory period, the prosecution of this assessee has been launched under Section 35-B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

(3.) In the present petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner is a widow aged 62 and has been assessed to income-tax, but she was never advised by her counsel that she was liable to pay any Wealth-tax; that when a notice was received under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, she engaged Shri Mastan Singh, advocate and the Wealth-tax as well as the penalties imposed upon her have been paid; that it was a surprise that now under Section 35-B of the Wealth-tax Act, her prosecution has also been launched on 27-3-1991. It has further been averred that the petitioner filed the returns relating to the years 1975-76 to 1981-82 and there has been no wilful failure on the part of the petitioner; that the complaint has been filed on 27-3-1991 and that it is liable to be quashed on account of undue delay, though according to the version of the complainant the alleged offence was completed on 1-7-1980; that no notice was served on the petitioner under Section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; that a notice under Section 35-B of the Wealth-tax Act was received on 25-10-1990 and that the petitioner was required to file its reply by, 30-10-1990 i.e. within 5 days and it could not be deemed to be a sufficient notice; that no opportunity; of hearing was given to the petitioner before launching her prosecution.