High Court Of Calcutta
Bhabi Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax& Ors.
Section WT 18(1)(c), WT 27A
Asst. Year 1990-91 to 1992-93
M.H.S. Ansari & Soumitra Pal, JJ.
GA No. 304, 306 & 307 of 2004 & AWT No. 6 to 8 of 2003
11th March, 2004
Counsel Appeared : Majumdar, for the Assessee Judgment
Soumitra Pal, J. :
Heard Mr. Majumdar, the learned advocate for the applicant/assessee. Since the issue involved is same, it is disposed of by a common order. The assessee has filed applications for a stay of the penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), for the asst. yrs. 1990-91, 199192 and 1992-93 initiated by the AO and communicated to the assessee by letter dt. 8th Dec., 2003/15th Jan., 2004, being Annex.-P10 to the applications. Mr. Majumdar submitted that the High Court admitted the appeals preferred by the assessee under s. 27A of the said Act against the order dt. 27th June, 2003, passed by the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1990-91, 1991- 92 and 1992-93, since it found that there were substantial questions of law arising out of the said orders of the Tribunal and the penalty proceedings initiated were relating to the same assessment years. It was submitted that since the said appeals are pending, penalty proceedings initiated should be stayed pending hearing of the appeals. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the apex Court in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC), Jaswant Rai vs. CBDT & Revenue (1998) 147 CTR (SC) 110 : (1998) 231 ITR 745 (SC) and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. CTO (1994) 94 STC 422 (SC) : (1994) 4 SCC 276. We are of the view that the submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant are not tenable as the penalty proceedings initiated are distinct and separate from the regular proceedings under the said Act. Separate procedure for penalty has been laid down under the said Act. The appeals pending on the file of this Court are with respect to the questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. The scope of the appeals is, therefore, limited to the determination of those questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. The applications filed for stay of the penalty proceedings which do not arise or form part of the order of the Tribunal are, in our view, therefore, not maintainable. The judgments cited by learned counsel do not deal with this aspect of the matter and therefore have no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the applications are dismissed as not maintainable. This order shall not preclude the petitioner from taking such proceedings as are open to him in law and as he may be advised with respect to the said penalty proceedings. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
M.H.S. ansari, J. : I agree.
[Citation : 267 ITR 583]
