2001 PLP 2676 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus LLOYD INSULATION (L) (P.) LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2676 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 186 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and B. N. Agrawal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus LLOYD INSULATION (L) (P.) LTD. |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2676 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2676 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 186 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and B. N. Agrawal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2676 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus LLOYD INSULATION (L) (P.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 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.
Headnotes / Summary
(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). ‑‑‑‑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.
Judgment & Decree
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. 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.