An amendment to a statute affecting substantive rights of the assessee cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated by the statute itself or by necessary intendment.

1. This batch of four cases are references made under Sec.27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench A, Patna, has submitted a consolidated statement of the case and invited our decision with regard to a common question arising out of the assessment orders for the four years being assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. The questions referred for our decision are: Re :-

-Assessment year 1965-66:

" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in reducing the penalty to Rs. 82 for the assessment year 1965-66 as against Rs. 1,993 imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer ? "

Re :--Assessment year 1966-67 :

" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in reducing the penalty to Rs. 95 for the assessment year 1966-67 as against Rs. 2,340 imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer ? "

Re :--Assessment year 1967-68 :

" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in reducing the penalty to Rs. 113 for the assessment year 1967-68 as against Rs. 2,305 imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer ? "

Re :--Assessment year 1968-69:

" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in reducing the penalty to Rs. 110 for the assessment year 1968-69 as against Rs. 2,520 imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer ?"

2. Though the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has made separate application for each year, the Tribunal proceeded to draw up a consolidated statement of case as stated above.

3. The WTO imposed penalties of Rs. 1,993, Rs. 2,340, Rs. 2,305 and Rs. 2,520 under Sec.18(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69, respectively. The wealth-tax returns in respect of these assessment years were due by 30th June of the relevant assessment years. However, the returns for all these years had been filed only on February 3, 1970. The WTO found that there was a delay in the filing of the returns and the period of delay ranged from 55 months to 7 months. Wealth returned by the assessee ranged from Rs. 1,32,750 to 1,72,066. The wealth shown had been accepted in the assessments made by the WTO.

4. A notice was issued to the assessee by the WTO to show cause as to why she should not be levied penalty under the provision of the Act for the late filing of the returns. In response to the show-cause notice, it was stated by the assessee that she had filed the returns voluntarily and had also paid the tax thereon and thus it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Accord- ing to the assessee, she filed the returns when she came to know of her liability under the Act. The explanation given by the assessee was not accepted by the WTO who imposed penalties as seated above. The orders of the WTO have been marked as annexures A, A1, A2 and A3, respectively, and form part of the statement of the case.

5. Before the AAC, the same arguments were reiterated and it was submitted that the appellant having made the returns and deposited the tax deserved some consideration from the Department. It was also submitted that a token penalty was sufficient in such a case to meet the ends of justice. The AAC held that it was the assessees responsibility to file her return as there was no doubt that her wealth exceeded the limit of exemption laid down under the Act, The AAC did not accept the plea that the WTO could have knowledge about the assessees wealth by looking into the balance-sheet of the company whose shares were held by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner further held that the value of these shares either on the basis of their face value or on the basis of their break up value would make the assessee liable for wealth-tax. The AAC also found that there was nothing to suggest from the records up to February, 1970, that the assessee was under the belief that her wealth did not exceed the taxable limit