1998 PLP 470 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus Smt. S. QUDIRA ANWAR
| Citation | 1998 PLP 470 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 221 I T R 129 |
| Bench Members | Sachchidanand Jha and Aftab Alam, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus Smt. S. QUDIRA ANWAR |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 470 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 470 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 221 I T R 129 bench comprising: Sachchidanand Jha and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 470 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus Smt. S. QUDIRA ANWAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A period of fifteen years having gone by counsel for the Department agreed that in the absence of the stay order the appeals must have been disposed of on the merits by the appellate authority in the meantime. And, therefore, these references so far as the assessee is concerned must have become infructuous. It appears further that substantial amendments were incorporated in subsection (1) of section 18 and subsection (2-A) has been omitted and replaced by a new section 18-B by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The question perhaps, therefore, has only academic importance. We have, however, heard counsel and considered the matter on the merits as we are given to understand that some more matters involving the same question relating to the period prior to April, 1976, when the aforesaid amendments came into force, might be pending.
- Counsel for the Department, Mr. S.K. Sharan, relied on Smt. Ichhabai Panchal v. CWT 1982 137 ITR 232 (Cal) in support of the stand about non-maintainability of appeal. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, apart from the Karnataka High Court in B. Kempanna's case (1980) 126 ITR 825 referred to above, has taken the contrary view in CWT v. Lt. Col. Mirza Mahmood Ali Baig (1985) 152 ITR 740. We have examined the aforesaid decisions and we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid cases.
Headnotes / Summary
Application for waiver or reduction of penalty under S.18(2-A)- Assessee can also prepare appeal against order levying penalty
Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.18
Smt. Ichhabai Panchal v. CWT (1982) 137 ITR 232 (Cal.) dissented from. It is clear from a bare reading of section 18(2-A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, that the Commissioner can merely reduce or waive the amount of minimum penalty imposable on a person subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in that subsection, whereas the power of the appellate authorities to confirm or reduce the penalty levied under section 18(1) is unconnected with the said requirement or conditions as specified under section 18(2-A) of the Act. Section 23(1)(d) confers a statutory right upon an assessee to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner objecting to any penalty as may be imposed by the Wealth Tax Officer under section
18. This right is an independent right, which has not been taken away either expressly or by necessary implication. The powers of the Commissioner to reduce or waive the amount of minimum penalty under section 18(2-A) and the appellate power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 23(1)(d) operate in different fields and directions. While exercising the power under section 23(1)(d) of the Act, the appellate authority is not circumscribed by any such considerations as envisaged under section 18(2-A). No doubt he also may reduce the quantum of penalty. In an appropriate case he may set aside the order itself, a power which cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, or impose minimum penalty in certain situations. If reasonable cause is shown the appellate authority under section 23(1)(d) may set aside the whole order; where such reasonable cause is not shown he may still reduce the quantum of penalty. But he cannot reduce it below the minimum imposable on the person. This can be done under section 18(2-A) of the Act. Hence, merely because the assessee chooses to move the Commissioner under section 18(2-A) of the Act .his statutory right for appeal under section 23(1)(d) is not lost. CWT v. Kempanna B. (1980) 126 ITR 825 Kar. and CWT v. Mirza Mahmood Ali Baig, Lt.-Col. (1985) 152 ITR 740 (AP) fol. Smt. Ichhabai Panchal v. CWT (1982) 137 ITR 232 (Cal.) dissented from. However, the exercise of the power of the Commissioner under section 25 is distinct from the exercise of the power under section 18(2-A) of the Act. In other words, where an assessee has moved the Commissioner under section 25(1) or the Commissioner has passed orders suo motu under section 25(1) or section 25(2), the appeal under section 23 cannot be said to be maintainable against the same orders of the Wealth Tax Officer thereafter, the reason being that the Commissioner while exercising the power under section 25 acts in the same hierarchy of powers, which is not the case when he exercises the power under section 18(2-A) of the Act. S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
AFTAB ALAM, J.
I agree. M.B.A./1234/FC Reference answered.