COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS AZIZUNNISA BEGUM
2001 P T D 1211
[243 IT R 852]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: B. P. Jeevan Reddy and K. T. Thomas, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Versus
Smt. AZIZUNNISA BEGUM
C. As. Nos. 202 to 206 of 1981, decided on /01/.
th
December, 1996 (Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated November 28, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.T.Cs. Nos. 240 to 244 of 1977).
Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑-Penalty‑‑‑Delay in filing returns‑‑‑Notice‑‑‑Transfer of AO‑‑ Fresh notice need not be given by succeeding officer‑‑‑Order of High Court declining reference not interfered with, because penalty amount was low and long time had elapsed‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss. 18. & 27.
Once a notice proposing levy of penalty for late filing of return is given by the Income‑tax Officer that, is good enough. It is not necessary for each succeeding Income‑tax Officer to go on issuing fresh notices on the same subject.
However, in view of the fact that the penalty amount was about Rs. 6,000 and these appeals were directed against the order of the High Court rejecting applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and also having regard to the time that had elapsed since the Court did not interfere with the order of the Court.
Proposition of law stated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT V. Sint. Azizunnissa Begum (1979) 119 ITR 376 corrected.
P.A. Choudhry, Senior Advocate, S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant.
Mukul Mudgal, Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER
These matters arise under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. It appears that on late filing of the return, the Wealth Tax Officer issued a notice proposing to levy penalty. There was no response from the assessee to the said notice. At that stage, ‑it appears, the incumbent Income‑tax Officer' was transferred and another person succeeded him in the office. The succeeding Income‑tax Officer completed the penalty proceedings and levied penalty. The High Court says that the succeeding Income‑tax Officer should also have given a fresh notice proposing 'to levy penalty and that not giving such a notice vitiates the order levying penalty. We do not think that we can agree with this proposition. Once a notice is given by the Income‑tax Officer that is good enough. It is not necessary for each succeeding Income‑tax Officer to go on issuing fresh notices on the same subject. At the same time in view of the fact that the penalty amount is about Rs. 6,000 and these appeals are directed against the order of the High Court rejecting applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, and also having regard to the time that has elapsed since, we are not inclined to interfere. The proposition of law has, however, been corrected by us.
The appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
M.B.A./457/FCAppeal dismissed.