S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This reference raises an important question of law with respect to interpretation of the words every month used in sec. 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 sec. 271 (1) (i) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of sec. 18(1) (i) are in peri materia with sec. 271 (1) (i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The petitioner-assessee is H. U. F. The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The assessee was required to file 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 (W.T.O.) on September, 15, 1973. The W. T. O. was of the view that there was a delay of 31 days (one month) in filing the return. He issued 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 sec. 18(1) (a) of the Act and so imposed a penalty of Rs. 1577/- The assessee filed an appeal. The Appellate Assis-tent Commissioner (AAC) opined that the default in filing the return was to be computed on the basis of the completed month. 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 W. T. O. is justified. A second appeal was lodged by the assessee and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) concurred with the view taken by the A. A. C. in regard to the very same contention that was reiterated before it on behalf of the assessee.

"In our opinion, a return of wealth is filed on the date on which it is received in the concerned office. The date of despatch of the return by post is not relevant for determining the date of filing of the return because post office is the agent of the assessee. In the present case the return of wealth was admittedly received by the Wealth-tax Officer on 15.9.73. Therefore, there was clearly a complete month of delay for which the penalty was rightly levied by the Wealth-tax Officer."

The assessee submitted an application to refer the question of law arising out of its order dated June 16, 1977, passed in W.T.A. No. 114/JP/1976-77 (Assessment year 1973-74). The Tribunal was of the opinion that the question of law arose out of its order and, therefore, it has referred the following questions for our decision:

"1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was delay of one month in filing the return under section 14 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the penalty levied by the Wealth Tax Officer?" We have heard Mr. R. Balia and Mr. B. R. Arora, for the assessee and Mr. C. R. Mehta, for the Revenue."

3. It is not in dispute that in accordance with sec. 14(1) of the Act, the assessee should have filed return of his wealth by Aug. 15, 1973. For the present purpose, the parties are further in agreement that the return despatched by registered post was received by the W.T.O. on September 15, 1973. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that as there was no default of a compel month when the return was received by the W.T.O. on September 15, 1973, no penalty could be levied under sec. 18(l)(i) of the Act. In support of his contention Mr. R. Balia placed strong reliance on C.I.T. vs. Khadri Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd.(l) and C.I.T. vs. Brijlal Lohia (2). On the other hand, Mr. C.R. Mehta, appearing, for the Revenue submitted that when the return was received on September 15, 1973, which should have been filed by August 15, 1973, there was a default of a complete month within the meaning of sec. 18 (l)(i) of the Act and therefore, on admitted facts of the case, the imposition of penalty was justi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document