Prior approval for wealth-tax penalty is mandatory on the date of default, while a wrong officer designation does not invalidate notice.

Penalty notices under the Wealth-tax Act were not invalid merely because the authorised signatory described himself as an Income-tax Officer, since an authorised Income-tax Officer could discharge the functions of a Wealth-tax Officer. However, the penalty could not be sustained because the default occurred before 1 April 1965, when the governing provision required previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before penalty could be imposed, and the record did not show that such approval had been obtained. The penalty deletion was therefore upheld and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty notices were invalid because the signatory described himself as Income-tax Officer instead of Wealth-tax Officer; (ii) whether penalty under the Wealth-tax Act could be sustained without the previous approval required by the governing provision in force on the date of the default.

Issue (i): Whether penalty notices were invalid because the signatory described himself as Income-tax Officer instead of Wealth-tax Officer.

Analysis: The statutory definition of Wealth-tax Officer included an Income-tax Officer authorised to discharge the functions of a Wealth-tax Officer under the Act. Since the authorised status of the signatory was not disputed, the mere description of the office as Income-tax Officer did not by itself invalidate the notices.

Conclusion: The notices were not bad in law on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under the Wealth-tax Act could be sustained without the previous approval required by the governing provision in force on the date of the default.

Analysis: The default in filing the return had occurred before 1 April 1965, when the relevant penalty provision required the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before penalty could be imposed. The record did not show that such approval had been obtained before the penalty order was made.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained in the absence of the requisite previous approval.

Final Conclusion: The penalty deletion was ultimately upheld and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty cannot be sustained unless the statutory precondition of prior approval applicable on the date of default is complied with, and a notice is not invalid merely because an authorised officer described himself by a different designation.

---