1990 (11) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat there was no defect in the notice issued by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(2) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty could be imposed for default under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act although proceedings were started under section 18(2) only ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in imposing the penalty without affording an opportunity of being heard in spite of a specific request ?" The assessee is an individual. The assessment year concerned is 1971-72. The return was due on or before June 30, 1971. It was actually filed on February 28, 1973. For this delay in filing the return, proceedings were in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eason to disturb or doubt the correctness of the said finding. We may mention that the firm was dissolved on August 31, 1966, and that its accounts were settled towards the end of year 1971. The return in this case was filed only in February, 1973. The delay of fourteen months has remained unexplained. Question No. 1 is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The second question relates to the alleged defect in the notice issued under section 18(2). The argument is that the notice does not specify whether the default was under subsection (1) or (2) of section 14. We do not think that the notice can be termed as invalid or void on the ground. Learned counsel relies on a decision ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and against the assessee. Coming to the last question, it is necessary to notice the language of sub- section (2) of section 18. This says that no order shall be made, under sub-section (1) unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This sub-section does not provide for a personal hearing. It only provides a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Once a show-cause notice is issued and an opportunity to file an explanation is afforded, the sub-section is satisfied. Personal hearing is not principle of natural justice. Where, however, complicated questions of fact or law are involved and an opportunity of oral hearing is asked for, its refusal may amount to violation of the principles of natural jus....