1. ' Leave has been granted in the present appeal in respect of the question of penalty imposed on the appellant under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act which was not waived and/or reduced under section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act by the Commissioner.
2. ' The assessm ent years involved are 1972-73 up to 1975-76. For the assessment year 1971-72, this Court has declined leave. Hence, we are not concerned with the assessment year 1971-72. Penalty has been imposed under section 18(1)(a) on account of the appellant's failure to furnish a return of wealth tax within the time allowed in the relevant assessment years. The delay ranges from 10 months to 34 months. The penalty which is levied has been calculated on the basis of half per cent.
3. For every month of delay. The total amount of penalty levied for these assessment years comes to Rs,28,366.
4. ' In his petition under section 18-B, the assessee contended that penalty should be waived because he had voluntarily and in goods faith made full disclosure of his net wealth by filing the wealth tax returns for the relevant assessm ent years prior to issuance of any notice under section 14(2). He had also cooperated in the enquiry relating to the assessment proceedings for the said assessm ent years. The Commissioner, in this connection, has observed that the assessee had obtained several adjournments on various grounds, some of which "related to obtaining a valuation report'. Looking to the series of adjournments, the Commissioner felt the assessee had failed to cooperate with the Department. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the conduct of the assessee as set out in the Commissioner's order, the Commissioner was perhaps a little too harsh in not reducing the amount of penalty, specially when the total tax involved in all these assessm ent years was only about Rs,7,000. The assessee had voluntarily filed the wealth tax returns before the issuance of any notice under section 14(2). Looking to all the circumstances, this is a fit case where penalty should have been reduced to 50 per cent. Of what has been levied. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is, thus, allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.