The court emphasized the requirement for the Wealth-Tax Officer to be satisfied that the Assessee had failed to furnish the Return without reasonable cause and highlighted the discretionary nature of penalty imposition based on relevant circumstances.

( 1 ) THIS is a batch of five writ petitions preferred by a common Assessee under the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. The writ petitions relate to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. The petitioner did not file his returns on the due dates, but he filed the same on 16th December 1969 pursuant to notices issued to him under S. 17 (2) in respect of the first four assessment years and under S. 14 (2) for the assessment year 1968-69. His returns were accepted and he was assessed to tax ranging from Rs. 469 to Rs. 637 for the net wealth assessed by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred revision petitions against the net wealth, but the same were dismissed.

( 2 ) THE Wealth-Tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under S. 18 of the Act. By separate orders made on 22-8-1970 he imposed penalties ranging from Rs. 3,986 to Rs. 5,191. The total amount of penalty levied was Rs. 21,590. The total amount of tax for the five assessment years amounted to Rs. 2,570.

( 3 ) BEFORE the Wealth-Tax Officer, in response to notice issued under s. 18 (2) of the Act, the petitioner offered his written explanation to show that the belated returns were not without reasonable cause. His explanation was that he was not aware that he is liable to tax taking into consideration the value of the properties at their original cost. The Wealth-Tax officer rejected the explanation on the ground that the Assessee himself has admitted the total wealth and therefore he had no reasonable cause tor filing a belated Return. Against the order imposing penalty, the petitioner preferred five revision petitions in WTLRP. Nos. 530 to 534/70 CIT under S. 25 of the Act, Before the Commissioner, the petitioner urged two grounds. Firstly, that the belated returns were not without reasonable cause; secondly, he urged that relief could be given to him under s. 16 (2a) cf the Act and that he satisfies the conditions prescribed by the said sub-secxion. The Commissioner rejected both the contentions and dismissed the revision petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constn.

( 4 ) THE Commissioner refused to grant relief under S. 18 (2a) of the act on the ground that the Commissioner's power under the said subsection has to be invoked by the Assessee before the penalties were levied and not after the penalties were levied. This view of the law taken by the commissioner is clearly/erroneous. It was not disputed by the learned. Counsel for the Department, Sri S. R. Rajashekhara Murthy, that the power under sub-section could be invoked either before or after the imposition of penalty. Though the view taken by the Commissioner with regard to his power under S. 18 (2a) is patently erroneous, it is unnecessary to direct the Commissioner to consider the question of exercise of his power under the same as the petitioner clearly does not satisfy the conditions laid down for exercise of that power. In order to obtain relief under S. 18 (2a) of the Act, one of the essential pre-requisite condition is that the Assessee should have voluntarily filed his Returns. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner states that notices were issued to the petitioner either under S. 14 (2) or S. 17 (2), as stated earlier, on 10-3-1969 and the Returns were filed in response to the said notices on 16-12-1969. Sri Rajashekhara Murthy placed before us the original records from which it is seen that the notices were actually issued to the petitioner and that he has acknowledged receipt of the notices. Therefore the petitioner cannot obtain any Relief under S. 18 (2a) of the Act.

( 5 ) ON the first question, however, the order of the Commissioner cannot be supported as he has failed to consider the scope of S. 18 (1) (a) of the Act. The said sub-section which empowers the levy of penalty provides that :"if the Wealth-Tax Officer in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document