TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (1) TMI 39
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 right in law in upholding the penalties of Rs. 5,382 and Rs. 7,759 levied by the department on the assessee under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively ? " The wealth-tax returns of the assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were due on June 30, 1964, and June 30, 1965, as laid down in section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called " the Act "). The same were, however, filed on March 18, 1971, after a delay of about six years. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments for the aforementioned years on March 22, 1971, on a total wealth of Rs. 1,45,800 and Rs. 1,65,200, respectively, as against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The orders imposing the aforementioned penalties were upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. Since the two appeals had been consolidated by the last mentioned Tribunal, a consolidated reference has been made to us. The precise question involved in the case is whether penalties should be imposed on the assessee on the basis of section 18(1)(a) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment on April 1, 1969, by the Finance Act, 1969, or the same should be increased from April 1, 1969, onwards by which date this section had been amended by the Finance Act, 1969. The point whether the non-filing of a return under section 14(1) of the Act constitutes a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the opinion of the High Court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Finance Act, 1969, was not retrospective in effect and the penalties under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, were exigible in these cases for the assessment years 1964-65 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 on the scale in force prior to the Finance Act, 1969 ? " While answering the question against the department and in favour of the assessee, the Bench observed as under--See [1977] 106 ITR 965,968 (All): " The law operative on the date when the infringement takes place is the law applicable unless it is made punishable ex post facto. If the argument of the department is accepted i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate v. Kunja Behari Chandra AIR 1954 Pat 371 [FB], State v. A. H. Bhiwandiwalla AIR 1955 Bom 161 and State v. Umashankar Laxminarayan Jaiswal AIR 1962 MP 311. We shall now briefly deal with these three authorities. In Kunja Behari Chandra's case AIR 1954 Pat 371 [FB], the Patna High Court was concerned with the interpretation of sections 30 and 31(4) of the Mines Act, 1923, Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946, and Mines Creche Rules, 1946. The relevant rules provided that creche should be provided for the children of the workers and workers should be allowed the facility of having a bath at the pithead of the mines. Apparently, the rules conferred important privileges on the coal miners which they were entitled to enjoy from day-to-day.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court goes against the revenue because omission to file a return or the omission to give a notice of occupation are the types of acts or omission which can properly be regarded as of the same type. Had the statute provided that the possession of wealth, without filing a return in respect of it before the Wealth-tax Officer, would constitute a wrongful act, the default would certainly be regarded as a continuing one. There is, however, no such provision in the Act. The aforementioned considerations apart, the matter stands concluded against the revenue by some of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan AIR 1959 SC 798, 807. These observations are: ....