TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (7) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment years and under section 14(2) for the assessment year 1968-69. His returns were accepted and he was assessed to tax ranging from Rs. 469 to Rs. 637. The net wealth assessed by the petitioner (sic). The petitioner preferred revision petitions against the net wealth, but the same were dismissed. The Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 18 of the Act. By separate orders made on August 22, 1970, he imposed penalties ranging from Rs. 3,986 to Rs. 5,191. The total amount of penalty levied was Rs. 21,590. The total amount of. tax for the five assessment years amounted to Rs. 2,570. Before the Wealth-tax Officer, in response to notice issued under section 18(2) of the Act, the petitioner off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e power under the sub-section could be invoked either before or after the imposition of penalty. Though the view taken by the Commissioner with regard to his power under section 18(2A) is plainly erroneous, it is unnecessary to direct the Commissioner to consider the question of exercise of his power under the same as the petitioner clearly does not satisfy the conditions laid down for exercise of that power. In order to obtain relief under section 18(2A) of the Act, one of the essential pre-requisite conditions is that the assessee should have voluntarily filed his returns. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner states that notices were issued to the petitioner either under section 14(2) or section 17(2), as stated earli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for not filing the return within the time. While considering the nature of the penalty under the Orissa Staes Tax Act, the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa has stated thus: "....... the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m, Shri Raghavendra Rao points out that the assessee had appointed an approved valuer to value the Bombay property of the assessee. The value of this property for each of the wealth-tax assessment years was determined by the approved valuer at Rs. 48,090 as against Rs. 94,040 declared by the petitioner for 1968-69 on the basis of 20 times the net annual value. This wide variation in the valuations, it is urged, has also occurred in respect of the other properties and, therefore, it is urged, that if all the properties had been valued by an approved valuer the aggregate value of all the properties owned by the assessee would be below the taxable limit and the assessee would not have been liable to wealth-tax. The above contentions of the as....