1. These matters arise under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. It appears that on late filing, of the return, the Wealth Tax Officer issued a notice proposing to levy penalty. There was no response from the assessee to the said notice. At that stage. It appears, the incumbent Income-tax Officer was transferred and another person succeeded him in the office. The succeeding Income-tax Officer completed the penalty proceedings and levied penalty. The High Court says that the succeeding Income-tax Officer should also have given a fresh notice proposing to levy penalty and that not giving such a notice vitiates the order levying penalty. We do not think that we can agree with this proposition. Once a notice is given by the Income-tax Officer that is good enough. It is not necessary, for each succeeding Income-tax Officer to go on issuing fresh notices on the same subject. At the same time in view of the fact that the penalty amount is about Rs.6,000 and these appeals are directed against the order of the High Court rejecting applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, and also having regard to the time that has elapsed since, we are not inclined to interfere. The proposition of law has, however, been corrected by us.
2. The appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No COS t S . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.