TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (2) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty levied under section 18(1) of the Wealth-tax Act ? " In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. One Humayun Mirza of Bangalore, the natural father of the assessee, was the owner of two valuable immovable properties bearing No. 2, Ali Askar Road, and No. 149/150, Infantry Road of Bangalore City. On March 16, 1967, Humayun Mirza made an oral gift of the said two properties in favour of the assessee who was then studying at London. In that view, Smt. Zeebrunnisa Begum, the natural mother and general power of attorney (G.P.A.) of the assessee, accepted the said gift for and on behalf of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18(1)(a) is exigible. The penalty levied for 1973-74 is, therefore, cancelled. 16. To sum up, we direct that for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, penalty should be recalculated on the basis of section 18(1)(a) as it stood prior to April 1, 1969, that penalty for assessment years 1968-69, 1970-71 and 1972-73 should be recomputed taking into consideration the fact that the time for filing the returns was extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes up to August 31, 1969, September 30, 1970, and July 31, 1972 respectively. The penalty for 1973-74 is cancelled while the penalties for the remaining two years, viz., 1969-70 and 1971-72, are confirmed." Hence these references for the said years. Sri K. Ramanujulu, learned couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, on the correctness of which there are no references, is essentially on a question of fact and cannot be disturbed by us in a proceeding under section 27 of the Act which is analogous to section 256 of the Income-tax Act. But still, Sri Ramanujulu who argued the cases with thoroughness, made a very strong and passionate plea to disagree with the said finding of the Tribunal on the ground that at all material times, the assessee as a student was residing outside India. We will assume that the assessee at all material times was outside India. But still that absence, considered by the Tribunal, does not by itself, in law, constitute a ground to hold that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for non-filing of the returns within the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act respectively ....... The Income-tax Officer has not mentioned as to which date he is taking for the submission of the return. Under the circumstances, there is vagueness in the order of the Income-tax Officer and the order cannot be said to be a legal and speaking order. On this ground alone the penalty order can be cancelled' (Emphasis added). Though the Tribunal characterised this situation as being vague (vagueness in the order of the Income-tax Officer), it seems apparent that the real import of the said finding is that vagueness was due to the fact that no precise starting point of time, relevant to the imposition of penalty, could be fixed and, hence, the same was invalid. It seems to us that fixing precisely the start....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt, dealing with the provisions of sections 159 and 162 of the Companies Act of 1956, held the liability to be a continuing one. In United Savings and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Chief Officer, Reserve Bank of India [1980] Crl. LJ 607, while referring to section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, it was held that refusal to comply with the terms of the said section created an offence and continued to be an offence so long as such failure or refusal persisted. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Delhi Development Authority [1982] Crl. LJ 2230, while referring to the provisions of the Delhi Development Act of 1957, the court held that the offence was a continuing one. In Bhattar v. State, AIR 1957 Cal 483, it was pointed out that a co....