Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Kanhaiyalal

A.R. Tiwari, J.—These miscellaneous civil cases are heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order. Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 433 of 1991 is filed by the Commissioner, Bhopal, u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (''the Act'') seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the common question, as proposed in this case and connected Misc. Civil Case No. 434 of 1991, arising out of the common order, dated 6-2-1991 passed by the Tribunal in W.T.A. No. 201, (Indore) of 1986 after rejection of the application, presented u/s 27(1), and registered as R.A. No. 72 (Indore) of 1991 on 10-9-1991.

Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 434 of 1991 is filed by the applicant (Commissioner, Bhopal) u/s 27(3) proposing the common question, as stated above, arising out of the order dated 6-2-1991 passed by the Tribunal in W.T.A No. 196 (Indore) of 1986 after rejection of the application, presented u/s 27(1), and registered as R.A. No. 67 (Indore) of 1991 on 10-9-1991.

The common question in both these cases is reproduced below:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that in view of the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mayarani Punj the penalty is to be recomputed when there are divergent views?

The facts of the case are that the WTO imposed the penalty u/s 18(1)(a) of the Act. The penalty was confirmed by the AAC in appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but with certain observations. The assessee filed the application, registered as M.A. No. 37 (Indore) of 1987, u/s 35 of the Act for rectification of the order dated 22-4-1987 passed in WTA Nos. 96 to 201 (Indore) of 1986 relating to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76. The Tribunal held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Maya Rani Punj Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, was not considered by the Tribunal. Treating this as an error apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal allowed the application, recalled the orders and directed hearing of the aforesaid appeals afresh. The application was, thus, allowed. Dissatisfied, the revenue filed the applications u/s 27(1) which were dismissed on 10-9-1991. Thereafter, the revenue has filed these cases u/s 27(3).

We have heard Shri A.M. Mathur, the learned senior counsel with Shri Vivek Sharan, for the applicant/revenue and Shri S.S. Samvatsar, the learned counsel for the L.R. of deceased non-applicant/assessee (Kanhaiyalal) in both these cases.

It is conceded by the counsels for the parties that a similar question was raised in CWT v. Kanhaiyalal [Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 435 of 1991] arising out of the order dated 6-2-1991 passed by the Tribunal in WT Appeal No. 199 (Indore) after rejection of the application, presented u/s 27(1), and registered as R.A. No. 70 (Indore) of 1991 on 10-9-1991, but in view of the decision in Maya Rani Punj''s case (supra), was dismissed by the this Court on 19-9-1996.

Nothing substantial is urged to take a different view in the matter.

The Tribunal declined to state the case and referred the aforesaid question in the under-noted terms:

In our opinion, no referable question of law arises for these reasons. The returns of wealth for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76 were filed by the assessee on 29-9-1978 whereas they were due to be filed by 31st July of each year. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the tax authorities below that there was delay in filing the returns of wealth without reasonable cause. The Tribunal further directed the quantum of penal penalties to be determined keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, . In view of dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the question of considering divergent views does not at all arise. The proposed question is, therefore, apparently misconceived.

In the result, the applications are dismissed".

There is no visible infirmity or illegality. The earlier order dated 19-9-1996 clinches the issue against the revenue.

We are, thus, satisfied that there is no referable question in each of these cases.

Ex consequenti, we find these cases as devoid of merit and dismiss the same, but with no orders as to costs.

Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Retain this order in the record of M.C.C. No. 433 of 1991 and place its copy in the record of M.C.C. No. 434 of 1991 for ready reference.