High Court Of Madras
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Smt. Sujatha Venkateswaran
Sections WT 18(1)(a)
Asst. Year 1984-85
V.S. Sirpurkar & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.
Tax Case No. 302 of 1995
4th February, 2002
Counsel Appeared
T. Ravi Kumar, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :
The question referred to us is as follows :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to recompute the penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957?”
The assessee is an individual and the concerned assessment year is 1984-85. Though the return under the WT Act was due to be filed on 30th June, 1984, the same was filed on 24th March, 1986. Hence, action was initiated by the AO under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act and while completing the assessment proceedings, a penalty of Rs. 62,360 was ordered. The assessee was aggrieved and preferred the appeal before the CWT(A), who while upholding the penalty, remitted the matter to the AO to revise the quantum of penalty with reference to the net wealth after making a fresh assessment as per the directions of the Tribunal in WTA No. 797 (Mad) of 1989, dt. 18th May,
1990. The Revenue therefore carried the matter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CWT(A), whereby the CWT(A) had upheld the levy of penalty and the remittance only for the quantum in pursuance of the fresh assessment framed.
We were taken through the order of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has categorically held that while dealing with the quantum appeal relating to the asst. yr. 1984-85, the Tribunal in its order dt. 18th May, 1990, had observed that the unquoted equity shares held by the assessee should be valued on yield method and not under r. ID and restored the matter to the file of the AO to determine the value of the shares held by the assessee afresh on yield basis. It further held that the quantum appeal had been restored to the AO for making a fresh assessment on the lines indicated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further observed that this being so, the direction given by the CWT(A) that the quantum penalty to be levied under s. 18(1)(a) should be revised as per the fresh assessment to be made by the AO on the lines suggested by the Tribunal’s order dt. 18th May, 1990.
It is further reported now before us that the order of the Tribunal has been upheld on the merits insofar as the assessment is concerned and has been throughout maintained up to this Court. In that view, it is clear that the penalty would have to be recalculated in the light of the fresh assessment by the AO. In that view, it will have to be held that the Tribunal was right in law in directing the recalculation of the penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957. The reference is therefore answered accordingly in favour of the assessee.
[Citation : 255 ITR 118]
