| Case ID |
2b69826d-7208-4036-a97b-103c3207a158 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 1982 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 10, 2002 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for waiver of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The petitioner had filed returns voluntarily and in good faith, and the failure of the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) to initiate proceedings under section 18(1)(c) was significant. The court emphasized that the petitioner should be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of his wealth as the WTO had not taken any action against him for concealment. The order passed by the Commissioner was quashed, and it was directed to reconsider the waiver application in light of the court's observations. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the application for waiver of penalty under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, filed by Amar Nath, who had submitted his wealth returns late for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1974-75. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax rejected his application, insisting that the petitioner needed to prove full disclosure of his net wealth despite the WTO not initiating any penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c). The Punjab and Haryana High Court analyzed the case and found that the reasons provided for the rejection were not legally sound, emphasizing the relevance of the Explanation under section 18B(1) which deems full disclosure when no penalty proceedings are initiated. The court's decision highlights the importance of fair assessment practices and the rights of assessees under tax laws, reinforcing that voluntary and good faith disclosures should be recognized appropriately, thus promoting transparency in tax compliance. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
G.S. Singhvi, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Sanjay Bansal,
Dr. N.L. Sharda
|
| Petitioners |
Amar Nath
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 769,
(2003) 261 ITR 247
|
| Other Citations |
Seetha Mahalakshmi Rice & Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 579,
Smt. Parkash Devi v. CWT [1983] 141 ITR 122,
Laxman v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 465,
Tarloki Nath Avinash Chander (HUF) v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 266,
Jagjiwan Kumar v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 229,
Sureshchandra Babulal Mittal v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 603
|
| Laws Involved |
Wealth-tax Act, 1957
|
| Sections |
18B,
18(1)(a),
18(1)(c),
14(2)
|