TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (3) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on March 26, 1977, after the amendment of section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, once the IAC had imposed composite penalty for concealment detected by the WTO and enhanced by the AAC in value of shares and jewellery on estimate, the order was bad even relating to the part, which had been originally deleted by the WTO, and, therefore, could not be maintained qua that part ? " The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows: For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed his return of net wealth declaring a net wealth of 1,38,000.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein that the reference was made by the WTO on 29th January, 1977. It is in the light of this additional fact that we have to answer the first question referred to this court. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which came into force from 1st April, 1976, the provisions of s. 18(3) of the Act, which required the WTO to refer the case to the IAC in the cases covered by that provision, has been recast as follows: " 18. (3) Not withstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of sub-section (1), if, in a case falling under clause (c) of that sub-section, the amount (as determined by the Wealth-tax Officer on assessment) in respect of which penalty is imposable under clause (c) aforesaid exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to this court, therefore, is against the Department. In view of our answer to the first question, learned counsel for the parties conceded that it would not be necessary to answer the second question referred to this court. We, therefore, decline to answer that question. Reference answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. [The order of the court dated 2003-81, directing the Tribunal to send supplementary statement of case, referred to in the judgment above (at p. 755) is given below.-Ed.] The following order of the court (dated March 20, 1981) was delivered by SHUKLA J.-Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act for o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee at Rs. 2,89,705 after allowing a deduction of Rs. 4,15,162 on account of debts owed by the assessee. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under s. 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act and referred the case to the IAC. The IAC invoked the Explanation to s. 18(1)(c) of the Act and by his order dated March 26, 1977, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,84,832. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal and the contention of the assessee was that the IAC has no jurisdiction to impose a penalty in view of the amendment to s. 18(3) of the Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from 1st April, 1976; jurisdiction to levy penalty was with the WTO only. This objection was overruled by the Tribunal holdin....