TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (8) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and by order dated March 16, 1976, imposed various amounts as penalty for late filing of the returns. The assessee preferred an appeal. By order dated August 13, 1976, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case with direction to decide the same afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In compliance with the order of remand, the matter was decided afresh by order annexure "A" dated March 15, 1978. The assessee made an application for rectification of the order, pointing out that penalty had to be calculated at the rates laid down befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed. Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section, (i) any period during which the immunity granted under section 22H remained in force; (ii) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 39 ; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this section for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded." The contention of Mr. Sawhney is that where the initial order imposing the penalty is passed within the period of limitation laid down in the above provision, subsequent reopening of the matter and a fresh decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re completed on May 29, 1973. The end of the financial year 1973-74 would bring us to March 31, 1974. The law permits a period of two years limitation, i.e., April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1976. The limitation was thus available up to March 31, 1976. The order in question was passed on March 16, 1976, i.e., within the period of limitation. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal and the appellate authority set aside the order of the Wealth-tax Officer and remanded the case with a direction to decide the same afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. It was in compliance with that order that the matter was decided afresh on March 15, 1978. This was rectified by a later order dated March 30, 1978. The question,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Pooran Mall and Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390. This was a case under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was observed as under (at page 394) "Even if the period of time fixed under section 132(5) is held to be mandatory that was satisfied when the first order was made. Thereafter, if any direction is given under section 132(12) or by a court in writ proceedings, as in this case, we do not think an order made in pursuance of such a direction would be subject to the limitations prescribed under section 132(5). Once the order has been made within ninety days the aggrieved person has got the right to approach the notified authority under section 132(11) within thirty days and that authority can direct t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome-tax Act, 1961, came up for consideration. These authorities are : (1) Addl. CIT v. N. V. Ganapathi Rao [1978] 115 ITR 277 (AP) (2) Addl. CIT v. K.S.G. Panicker, Kerala Produce Exporting Co. [1974] 97 ITR 525 (Ker) ; (3) CIT v. Ram Baran Ram Nath [1976] 104 ITR 691 (All). The main reasons which prevailed with the learned judges were: (i) There was no limitation provided for the purpose of completion of penalty proceedings in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In the Income-tax Act, 1961, section 275 had been enacted prescribing limitation. The obvious intention of the Legislature was to ensure completion of penalty proceedings which are in the nature of quasi-criminal proceedings with the least possible delay. (ii) Section....