TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns Commissioner's decision on Wealth Tax Act application, orders fresh review.</h1> <h3>Hans Raj (HUF) Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala</h3> Hans Raj (HUF) Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala - TMI Issues:Challenge to order declining jurisdiction under Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala, which declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner filed wealth tax returns for assessment years 1977 to 1985 collectively and voluntarily without any notice from the Department. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty, which the petitioner accepted but filed an application under Section 18-B seeking a reduction or waiver of the penalty. The Commissioner rejected the application without considering the factors set out for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 18-B. The petitioner argued that the entire wealth tax was paid at the time of filing the return, while the respondent contended that the petitioner did not deserve a reduction or waiver of penalty as the tax was deposited after the due date.Upon hearing both parties and examining the impugned order, the Court found that the Commissioner had erred in dismissing the application under Section 18-B. Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act empowers the Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties based on specific parameters outlined in the Act. The Court noted that the Commissioner failed to consider the factors enumerated in Section 18-B while dismissing the application. The Court highlighted that the impugned order did not provide valid reasons based on Section 18-B for rejecting the petitioner's request.The Court observed that Section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act begins with a non-obstante clause, indicating that the Commissioner must only consider the factors specified in the Act when deciding on penalty reduction or waiver requests. Since the impugned order did not adhere to the factors outlined in Section 18-B, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order, and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala for a fresh decision in compliance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on a specified date for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
