COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. AZIZUNNISA BEGUM (SMT)
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 202-206 of 1981
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Respondent: AZIZUNNISA BEGUM (SMT)
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 202-206 of 1981
Judges: B.P. Jeevan Reddy & K.T. THOMAS, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 12, 1996
Head Note:
WEALTH TAX
Wealth Tax Act
Section 27 (3) – Notice for penalty on late filing of return – ITO transferred – No fresh notice by succeeding ITO. Held once a notice is given by the ITO, it is not necessary for each succeeding ITO to issue fresh notices on the same subject. Appeals disposed accordingly. (Para 1)
Wealth Tax Act
Section 27 (3) – Notice for penalty on late filing of return – ITO transferred – No fresh notice by succeeding ITO. Held once a notice is given by the ITO, it is not necessary for each succeeding ITO to issue fresh notices on the same subject. Appeals disposed accordingly. (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These matters arise under the Wealth Tax Act. 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 ITO should also have given a fresh notice pro-posing 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 ITO that is good enough. It is not necessary for each succeeding ITO 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. 6000 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.
2. The appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
1. These matters arise under the Wealth Tax Act. 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 ITO should also have given a fresh notice pro-posing 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 ITO that is good enough. It is not necessary for each succeeding ITO 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. 6000 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.
2. The appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
