' OZA, ACTG. C. J.-This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribuna!, Jabalpur, for answering the following question : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that an appeal before the A. C. C. Was maintainable against W. T.
0.'s penalty order under section 18(1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957, irrespective of the fact that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had dismissed the petition filed by the assessee for waiver or reduction of penalty under section 18(2-A) of the Wealth-tax Act?"
2. Facts stated in this reference are that the assessee had submitted returns for the years 1964-65 to 1971-72 on 27-3-1973 and had also submitted a petition to the Commissioner, Wealth Tax for waiver of the penalty. 1 he Wealth-tax Officer imposed penalty with regard to the assessment for delay in filing the returns and the Commissioner, Wealth-tax, rejected the application filed by the assessee under section 18(2-A) of the Act for waiver of the penalty. The assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who did not examine the case of the assessee on merits, but dismissed the appeals holding that as the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had rejected their petition under section 18(2-A), therefore, the appeals were not competent. Against this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee went up in appeal, to the Appellate Tribunal which took the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not right in dismissing the appeals merely on the ground that as the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had rejected the application under section 18(2-A), the appeals were not competent. The Tribunal held that the appeals to the Appellate Commissioner were competent and directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the appeals on merits. After this order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, this reference has been made at the instance of the Revenue for answering the question quoted above.
3. Section 18(2-A) of the Wealth-tax Act, under which the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has been conferred with jurisdiction to consider the question of waiver of penalty, is altogether on different considerations. The section reads as under : "18(2-A), Notwithstanding anything 'contained in clause (i) or clause (iii) of subsection (1), the Commissioner may, in his discretion-
(i) reduce or waive the amount of minimum penalty imposable on a person under clause (i) of subsection (1) for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return of net wealth which such person was required to furnish under subsection (1) of section 14, or
(ii) reduce or waive the amount of minimum penalty imposable on a person under clause (iii) of subsection (1). if he is satisfied that such person-
(a) in the case referred to in clause (1) of this subsection has, prior to the issue of notice to him under subsection (2) of section 14, voluntarily and in good faith, made full disclosure of his net wealth ; and in the case referred to in clause (ii) of this subsection has, prior to the detection by the Wealth-ttax Officer of the concealment of particulars of assets or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of the assets or debts in respect of which the penalty is imlosable, v luntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosure of such particulars ;
(b) has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of the wealth represented by such assets ; and
(c) has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year."
4. It is clearfrom the language of section 18(2-A) that the Commissioner has to consider on the assumption that the assessee was, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish return and the assessee has become liable for penalty. The considerations for the Commissioner to waive the penalty are not as to whether there was or was not reasonable cause for late tiling of the return, A but as the language of the section quoted above discloses, it is altogether on different considerations, whereas the Wealfh-tax Officer imposed the penalty as the cause shown by the assessee was not considered to be reasonable and that is the ground on which the Wealth-tax Officer could impose penalty under section 18.
5. It is, therefore, clear that the considerations for imposition of penalty are different than the considerations which are provided in section 18(2-A) for the Commissioner to waive the penalty and in this view of the matter, therefore, it is clear that merely because the Commissioner has chosen not to waive the penalty under section 18(2-A), it could not be a ground for holding that the appeals are not competent. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No, 430/78, placing reliance on decisions of Karnatak, Madras and Delhi High Courts.
6. In our opinion, therefore, the Appellant Commissioner was not right in holding that the appeals are not competent. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the affirmative. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as maintainable against the Wealth-tax Officer's Order imposing penalty under section 18(1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.