TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (4) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under s. 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and, therefore, an appeal would lie before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and The Tribunal. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the conduct of the assessee was not contumacious or dishonest and was right in cancelling the penalties?" said to be questions of law arising out of consolidated Tribunal's order dated 13th Oct., 1977 in respect of assessment year 1970-71 to the Honourable Rajasthan High Court. 2. In our opinion, no question of law would arise out of Tribunal's order. The brief facts of the case are as under. In respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce issued in penalty proceedings. The Wealth-tax Officer in the case of Shri Shivduttrai Lila passed the following order: "During the course of assessment it was observed that the assessee concealed the particulars of her/his wealth. Notice u/s. 18(2) of the Wealth-tax Act was issued and served on the assessee. No reply was received to this notice. However, the assessee moved the Commissioner of Income-tax to reduce the penalty u/s. 18(2A). The above facts establish beyond that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of her/his income, therefore, she/he is liable for penalty. The penalty imposable in the case was Rs. 28,710. However, the learned CIT vide his letter No. SIB/VD/WT/22/71-72 dated 3rd Oct., 1973 has reduce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he scope of both the provisions are separate and independent. It was further submitted that in the present cases the learned Wealth-tax Officer at the time of completing re-assessments initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act. The assessees were served with show cause notices. The learned Wealth-tax Officer himself held in the orders that the assessees have concealed the particulars of assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of any assets. Even according to the orders of the Wealth-tax Officer under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act was attracted. Thus the Wealth Tax Officer imposed the penalties, as discussed above. Thus it was contended that penalty orders passed by the learned Wealth-tax Officer were really orders passed under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... right in holding that no appeal would lie against the impugned orders by the Wealth-tax Officer?". 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned orders of penalty passed by the Wealth-tax Officer were orders under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 or the Wealth-tax Officer was only giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under s. 18(2A) of the Act? If so, its effect?" The Honourable Third Member answered Question No. 3 as under: "The answer to Question No. 3 is thus to the effect that the impugned orders of penalty passed by the Wealth-tax Officer were order under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act and the same were not only to the effect to the order of the Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndation of the proceedings for levy of penalty." Similarly, in the case of Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India & Others(2), the Supreme Court ruled that the crucial date for the purpose of penalty, is the date of such completion of the assessment. In the present cases, the Wealth-tax Officer issued notices under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. These notices were served upon the assessees. Since the assessees filed no reply, the Wealth-tax Officer imposed penalties in question. The Wealth-tax Officer in his orders clearly stated that the penalties were leviable under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act to a higher amount but since the Commissioner has reduced the quantum, the learned Wealth-tax Officer imposed the penalties on the red....