JUDGMENT
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Tribunal”), under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), has referred the following question of law, which arose out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, to this court for opinion :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty levied against Smt. Shibani Dutta alone as legal representative of the late Bhutnath Dutta for the default of seven months from December 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974, for the assessment year 1971-72 and for the default of six months from December 1, 1973, up to May 31, 1974, for the assessment year 1972-73, under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?”
2. The relevant facts leading to the above question of law are that one Bhutnath Dutta died intestate on November 9, 1972, and after his death his widow, Smt. Shibani Dutta, the assessee, as the legal representative, filed her returns under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 on June 29, 1974, and July 1, 1974, although under Section 14(1) of the Act the returns were to be filed on June 30, 1971, and June 30, 1972, respectively. For the delay in filing the returns, the Wealth-tax Officer in exercise of the power under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act, levied penalty to the tune of Rs. 13,500 and Rs. 11,109 in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, respectively. The assessee preferred appeals against the orders levying penalty before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeals partly, condoning the delay in filing the returns up to November 30, 1973, and imposed penalty for the delay in filing the return for a period of seven months in respect of both the assessment years. The assessee thereafter preferred appeals against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeals and upheld the levy of penalties for the delay in filing the returns from December 1, 1973. The assessee thereafter filed applications before the learned Appellate Tribunal for referring the questions of law which, according to the assessee, arose out of the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal to this court for opinion. The learned Tribunal thereupon referred the aforesaid question of law for opinion to this court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee and learned standing counsel for the Department.
4.
On similar facts, an identical question of law was referred by the learned Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court, which, according to the learned Tribunal, arose out of the orders upholding the levy of penalties on the assessee, Smt. Shibani Dutta, for the delay in filing the income-tax returns on and from December 1, 1973, in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 and the references were registered as Tax Cases Nos. 12 and 12A of 1980. By the judgment and order passed today in Tax Cases Nos. 12 and 12A of 1980 (Smt. Shibani Dutta v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 93) we have answered the identical question in the negative and against the Revenue. The law points involved in the aforesaid question referred in these two cases (Tax Cases Nos. 11 and 11A of 1980) being covered by the decision in Tax Cases Nos. 12 and 12A of 1980 ([1996] 217 ITR 93), we hold that the learned Tribunal was not justified in upholding the levy of penalties on the assessee for the delay in filing the returns of wealth-tax for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73.
5. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the Revenue.
