Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Kanhaiyalal Thavarji

A.R. Tiwari, J.—The applicant (Commissioner) has filed this application u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the undernoted question, arising out of the order dated 6-2-1991 passed by the Tribunal in Wealth-tax Appeal No. 199 (Ind.) of 1986 after rejection of the application registered as RA No. 70 (Ind.) of 1991 on 10-9-1991 : 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 the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj, the penalty is to be recomputed when there are divergent views ?"

******

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in view of late filing of the return, the WTO imposed penalty u/s 18(l)(a) of the Act on 8-3-1984. Later, the WTO revised the penalty u/s 35 of the Act on 31-7-1984. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the AAC which were dismissed. The assessee filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee himself had shown taxable wealth and could not show sufficient cause for non-compliance of the provisions. The Tribunal, therefore, confirmed the penalty. Later, vide order dated 30-11-1990, the Tribunal recalled the order and directed fresh hearing of the appeals. The Tribunal held that in view of the position, the quantum of penalty is required to be redetermined, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, . The applicant felt aggrieved and filed the application u/s 27(1). The application was rejected. Thereafter, the applicant has filed this application u/s 27(3).

We have heard Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, the learned Sr. counsel with Shri Vivek Sharan for the applicant, on merits. Shri Samvatsar appeared for the L.R. of N.A.

We find that the Tribunal declined to state the case and refer the question in the undernoted 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 31 st 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 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 the 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."

******

The counsel for the applicant was unable to point out any infirmity or illegality in the order of refusal.

The Tribunal passed the order on the basis of the ratio indicated in Maya Rani Punj''s case (supra).

In view of the aforesaid position, we are satisfied that there is no referable question of law. Accordingly, we dismiss this Misc. Civil Case with no orders as to costs. Counsel fee for the applicant is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.