Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TRUSTEES OF SAHEBZADAS OF SARAF-E-KHAS TRUST, HYDERABAD ETC
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/1996
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2952-54 OF 1979:
These appeals are directed against the order of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court answering the reference made under
Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Acts 1957 at the instance of
the Revenues in favour of the assessee and against the
Revenue. The question referred was:
"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the
penalty to be levied for the
assessment years 1962- 63, 196-64
and 1964-65 should be as per the
provisions of Section 18(1)(a) as
they stood before amendment with
effect from 1.4. 1963 (sic)."
The High Court answered the said question in favour of
the ssessee following the earlier decision of the said Court
in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. R.D.Chand [108 I.T.P.787].
In these appeals it is contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant-Revenue that the aforesaid question has to
be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the
assessee following the decision of this Court in Maya Rani
Punj v. Commissioner of Income Tax [157 I.T.R.330] which has
overruled the earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner
of Wealth Tax Suresh Seth [129 I.T.R.328]. Though the said
decision has been rendered with reference to the provisions
of the Income Tax Acts the ralevant provisions of the Income
Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act are similar and the question
considered therein was also similar to the one arising
herein. Indeed it overruled the decision in Suresh Seths
which fully supports the assessee’s contention.
Sri Harish Salvew learned counsel tor the respondent-
assessees, while not disputing that the said decision
corlcludes the issue against the assessees submitted that
the decision in Maya Rani Purj requires reconsideration
inasmuch as it has not properly appreciated the ratio of the
decision in Suresh Seth, Counsel submitted that the over-
ruling of the decision in Suresh Seth is not correct in law.
We have heard Sri Salve at some length but we are not
satisfied that there are any good and compelling reasons to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
depart from the law enunciated in Maya Rani Punj. The
decision was rendered by a three-Judge Bench and it has
fully considered the principle of Suresh Seth but chose to
disagree with it. Not only are we bound by the said
decision, we are also not satisfied that there are
sufficient grounds warranting reconsideration of the
decision in Maya Rani Punj.
Following the said decision, the appeals are allowed.
The judgment and order of the High Court is sat aside and
the question aforementioned is answered in the negative,
i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
There shall be no order as to cost.
CIVIL # L NOS.187-190 OF 1980:
These appeals have been directed to be tagged with
Civil Appeal Nos.2952-54 of 1979. No separate argument have
been addressed herein. In view of the decision in the said
appeals these appeals too are allowed and the question
referred to the High Court is answered in favour of the
Revenue and against the assessee. The question which was
referred for the opinion of the High Court reads:
"Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case the
Tribunal was right in holding that
the penalties u/s 18(1)(a) for
asstt. years 1965-66 to 1968-69
were liable to be calculated in
accordance with the law as it stood
before amendment on 1.4.69 even
before the period of default after
31.3.69 and not as per the
increased scale of penalty
introduced with effect from 1.4.69
by the Finance Act, 1969?"
Answered accordingly. No costs.