TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (7) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8(1)(i) are in pari materia with section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner-assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The assessee was required to file a return of wealth by August 15, 1973. The return was despatched by the assessee by registered post on September 12, 1973. It was received by the Wealthtax Officer on September 15, 1973. The Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that there was a delay of 31 days (one month) in filing the return. He issued a show-cause notice to the assessee regarding penalty. He held in his order dated December 5, 1975, that the assessee was a defaulter within the meaning of section 18(1)(a) of the Act and so imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,577. The asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was delay of one month in filing the return under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the penalty levied by the Wealth-tax Officer ?" We have heard Mr. R. Balia for Mr. B. R. Arora, for the assessee and Mr. C. R. Mehta, for the Revenue. It is not in dispute that in accordance with section 14(1) of the Act, the assessee should have filed return of his wealth by August 15, 1973. For the present purpose, the parties are further in agreement that the return despatched by registered post was received by the Wealth-tax Officer on September 15, 1973. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is anything repugnant in the subject or context to all Central Acts made after January 3, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after January 14, 1887. The Wealth-tax Act is of 1957, and, thus, the definition given in section 3(35) shall be applicable for interpreting the word " month " used in various sections of the Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. According to section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the month does not necessarily mean 30 days and it is according to the Gregorian calendar unless the context otherwise requires. The words used in section 18(1)(i) are for every month during which the default continued ", as stated hereinabove. In section 271 (1)(i)(b), the very same words ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." should be the English calendar month. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court expressed its agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Kadri Mills' case [1977] 106 ITR 846. We have considered the reasoning given in Kadri Mills' case [1977] 106 ITR 846 (Mad) and Brijlal's case [1980] 124 ITR 485 (Cal). There is absolutely nothing in the context of section 18(1)(i) of the Act to exclude the application of the definition of the word " month " occurring in section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. There is nothing in the context to exclude the invocation of the definition in section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to construe the words used in section 18(1)(i) of the Act. The view taken....