TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (8) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 19,602 calculated on the basis of the law prevailing on April 1, 1969 ? " The assessee was required to file his return of wealth for the assessment year 1966-67 on or befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as it was amended from April 1, 1969. On further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, it was held that the penalty imposable upon the assessee for late filing of the return should be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 18(1)(a), as they stood on the date the assessment order was passed and the law which was in force earlier thereto, could not gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t provision was committed as soon as the assessee failed to file a return on his net wealth on the last date specified under section 14(1) of the Wealthtax Act, namely, 30th day of June of the relevant assessment year. If the return is filed subsequently (at a later point of time) or if no return is filed at all, the same would not affect the default committed by the assessee and the penalty has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arlier, there was some difference of opinion between the various High Courts on this question, but the controversy was set at rest by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Suresh Seth's case [1981] 129 ITR 328, which was followed by us in Prithvi Singh's case [1984] 148 ITR 516. This case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and the question referred to us must be answe....