HARNAND RAI RAMANAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises an important question of law with respect to interpretation of the words " every month" used in Section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (No. XXVII of 1957), (for short "the Act")'. We may also state that the same words have been used in Section 271(t)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provisions of Sections 18(1)(i) are in pari materia with Section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) THE petitioner-assessee is a Hindu undivided family. THE assessment year involved is 1973-74. THE assessee was required to file a return of wealth by August 15, 1973. THE return was despatched by the assessee by registered post on September 12, 1973. It was received by the Wealth-tax Officer on September 15, 1973. THE Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that there was a delay of 31 days (one month) in filing the return. He issued a show-cause notice to the assessee regarding penalty. He held in his order dated December 5, 1975, that the assessee was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Act and so imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,577. THE assessee filed an appeal. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner opined that the default in filing the return was to be computed on the basis of completed months. According to him, as the return was due to be filed on August 15, 1973, and as it was received on September 15, 1973, a complete month has passed and, therefore, the penalty imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer is justified. A second appeal was lodged by the assessee and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the very same contention that was reiterated before it on behalf of the assessee :

(3.) THE question that arose before the Madras High Court in CIT v. Kadri Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd, [1977] 106 1TR 846 (Mad), was whether the word "month" occurring in Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be reckoned according to the British calendar according to Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It was held that the word "month" occurring in Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act has to be reckoned according to the British calendar as defined in Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. CIT v. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. [1974] 97 ITR 285 (All), was dissented from.