Good-faith filing and penalty waiver under wealth-tax law: refusal stands where no explanation supported duplicate HUF returns.

The Commissioner's refusal to waive penalty under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act was upheld because the petitioner did not avail the personal hearing and gave no explanation for filing two returns in the names of Hindu undivided families with the same coparceners. On that record, the view that the returns were not filed in good faith could not be treated as a manifest or apparent error. Interference under article 226 was therefore not warranted, and the order was not shown to suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner's refusal to waive penalty under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act was vitiated by any manifest error warranting interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioner did not avail itself of the opportunity of personal hearing before the Commissioner and, in reply to the show-cause notice, offered no explanation for filing two returns in the status of Hindu undivided family by the same set of persons. In that setting, the Commissioner's view that filing separate returns in the names of two Hindu undivided families consisting of the same coparceners was not in good faith could not be characterised as a manifest or apparent error on the record.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and interference in certiorari jurisdiction was not called for.

---