COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS LLOYD INSULATION (I.) (P.) LTD.
2001 P T D 2676
[248 I T R 186]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and B. N. Agrawal, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
versus
LLOYD INSULATION (L) (P.) LTD.
C.As. Nos.6155 to 6158 of 2000, decided on 03/11/2000.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated August 5, 1999, of the Delhi High Court in W.T.C. No. 16 of 1999).
Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Delay in filing returns‑‑‑Ignorance whether reasonable cause for delay‑‑‑Tribunal whether justified in cancelling penalty‑‑‑Questions of law‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss. 18(1)(a) & 27.
Held, that the question whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the lack of knowledge' of the provisions of law constituted a reasonable cause for filing return beyond the period prescribed and whether it was justified in cancelling the penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, were questions of law.
Harish N: Salve, Solicitor‑General (Ashok K. Shrivastava, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
Manmohan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Vanita Bhargava and Mrs. Rakhi Ray, Advocates for Respondent.
ORDER
Leave granted.
The notice on the special leave petitions stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by setting aside the order under challenge and directing the High Court to call for a reference of the questions that were proposed by the Revenue.
The questions that were proposed by the Revenue read thus:
"Whether the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law:
(a) in cancelling the penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, even though return was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation?
(b) in holding that the lack of knowledge of the provisions of law constituted a reasonable cause for filing return beyond the period prescribed?"
The High Court in declining to call for a reference did not assign any reasons, but it seems clear to us that the second question that was proposed is a question of law and the first question is consequential on the reply thereto. We think, therefore, that the order declining to call for a reference must be set aside.
The appeals are allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The Tribunal shall refer to the High Court for its opinion the two questions aforestated, after drawing up the statement of case.
No order as to costs.
M.B.A./947/FC ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals allowed.