CHARANJIT TALWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Shri A. N. Sarvaria, (since expired) had challenged the legality of the orderpassed on 30/12/1974, by the Commissioner ofwealth-tax, New Delhi, refusing to reduce or waive the penaltyimposed on the petitioner by the Wealth Tax Officer on theground that the returns of wealth tax for the assessment years1965-66 to 1971-72 had not been filed voluntarily. ( 2 ) THE wealth tax returns tor the years 1965-66 to 1970-71were filed by the petitioner on 29/12/1970. Accordingto the petitioner he had not received any notice under section14 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter called the Act ). However, return in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, it isthe case of the petitioner, was filed by him on 8/07/1971. after receipt of a notice dated 16/06/1971, under section14 (2) of the Act. It is averred that soon after the filing of thereturns the petitioner paid wealth tax on the basis of those returnsas per the provisions of section 15-B of the Act. The net wealth asdeclared by the petitioner in the said returns, it is stated in thepetition, was accepted by the Wealth Tax Officer as per assessmentorders, copies of which are Annexure A-1 to A-7 to the writpetition. The Wealth Tax Officer initiated proceedings undersection 18 (l) (a) of the Act for levying penalty for late filing ofthe returns in respect of the assessment years 1965-66. 1966-67and 1968-69 to 1971-72. For the assessment year 1967-68, thewealth Tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 18 (l) (c)of the Act and issued a show cause notice requiring the petitionerto state as to why penalty for concealing of wealth be not levied. This order qua the assessment year 1967-68 was however, dropped by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner holding that therewas no concealment on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, thecommissioner of Wealth Tax acting under section 25 (2) of theact directed that penalty proceedings under section 18 (1) (a) ofthe Act for late submission of return for that year be initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner by an application dated 29/12/1973, under section 18 (2) (A) of the Act filed before the Commissionerof. Thereafter, thecommissioner of Wealth Tax acting under section 25 (2) of theact directed that penalty proceedings under section 18 (1) (a) ofthe Act for late submission of return for that year be initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner by an application dated 29/12/1973, under section 18 (2) (A) of the Act filed before the Commissionerof. Wealth Tax, sought that as his wealth tax returns hadbeen filed by him voluntarily and had been accepted penalty forlate filing of those returns be not levied, ( 3 ) THE finding of the Commissioner that the returns filedwere not voluntary are contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of theimpugned order, Annexure D-1 to the writ petition, It is useful to quote those paragraphs : ( 4 ) A perusal of the reords showing that the assessee came upfor survey during the course of survey operations carried out bythe Department in respect of wealth-tax on agicultural properties. A survey report is on record and this was received by the W. T. O. on the 22/12/1970. This shows the land holdings ofthe assessee along with his other assets, like shares ana commercial plots, etc. It is only after the survey had been carried outand the affairs of the assessee noticed that he came forward andfiled these returns. These returns cannot, therefore, he said tobe voluntary for any of these years. ( 5 ) SHRI Sadhu Ram Aggarwal, Advocate, vehemently assertedthat the filing of returns was without the issue of notices by thew. T. O. That is altogether a separate condition prescribed undersec. 18 (2a) and if that condition was satisfied, the disclosure hasstill to be voluntary. In this particular case, the motivating factor for the assessee to make these returns was certainly nothingother than the initiative of the Department in locating-him duringwealth-tax and Othersthe course of survey. Shri Sadhu Ram further stated that theassessee paid the taxes immediatly after filing the returns andthat he satisfies all the other conditions. As mentioned above,the assessee has to satisfy all the conditions, and in this case hecertainly does not qualify to be held as a person who came upvoluntarily. As the assessee does not satisfy one of the conditions, the disclousre is rejected. In fact, there are other conditions also which the assessee does not satisfy for some of theyears, like issue of notices, but It is not necessary to go intofurther details". As the assessee does not satisfy one of the conditions, the disclousre is rejected. In fact, there are other conditions also which the assessee does not satisfy for some of theyears, like issue of notices, but It is not necessary to go intofurther details". ( 4 ) I may notice here that in the writ petition the petitioner isnot challenging the levy of the penalty for late filing of the returnin respect of the assessment year 1971-72. It is his own casethat, that return was filed by him after the receipt of notice undersection 14 (2) of the Act. ( 5 ) I may note here another fact and that is that the respondentshave chosen not to file any return to the rule nisi. However,mr. Wazir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, atthe lime of arguments took up a preliminary objection to themaintainability of the writ petition. According to him althoughthe Commissioner passed a common order rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking quashing of the levy of penalty forthe various assessment years yet the petitioner was obliged to fileseparate writ petition in respect of each assessment order and nota joint petition assailing the imposition of penalty in respect ofall the assessment years in question. In support of his contention Mr. Wazir Singh cited A. P. Vasudevan v. State of Madras,1978 Tax. L. R. NOC 97 (1), wherein a Single Judge of themadras High Court held thin where 18 assessment orders werechallenged in 18 revision petitions which were disposed of by thecommissioner appointed under the Tamil Nadu Entertainmenttax Act by a common order, a single writ petition was notniaintainable challenging all those assessment orders. The reasonsfor arriving at this finding, however, have not been given in thereport. In my view, the objection taken at the time of argumentsis entirely misconceived. In the present case, as noticed above, thepetitioner had filed a single application seeking waiving of thepenalty imposable under section 18 (2-A) on the plea that thereturns which he hadfiled were voluntary and that his case otherwise also fell within purview of section 18 (2-A) (a) of the Act. He was not challenging in that application the assessment orderspassed. At that stage, as is clear from the facts noticed above,even the order imposing penalty, copies Annexurc C-1 to C-6,dated 5/03/1974, had yet to be passed. As noticed earlierthe application was made on 2 9/12/1973. He was not challenging in that application the assessment orderspassed. At that stage, as is clear from the facts noticed above,even the order imposing penalty, copies Annexurc C-1 to C-6,dated 5/03/1974, had yet to be passed. As noticed earlierthe application was made on 2 9/12/1973. Howevereven a petition assailing the assessment of more than one years,if admitted cannot be justly dismissed as being incompetent, especially when the grounds of challenge are exactly similar. This hasbeen held by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court inmadan Mohan and another v. The District Excise and Taxationofficer, Bhatinda and another, (1964) 15 S. T. C. 648 (2 ). In thepresent case, as noticed above, the respondents have not chosento file a counter-affidavit. If they were so advised, they could havetaken the preliminary objection in the return so that even if theprinciple propounded by the Madras High Court in A. V. Vasudevan s case (supra) was to be accepted for the sake of argumentthat the order amounts to refusal to waive penalty imposableunder section 18 for different assessment years, the petitioner couldhave then an opportunity to meat it or file separate petition inrespect of each year. The writ petition was admitted on 24/03/1975. In my view, it is not just to entertain theobjection at this late stage even if it he assumed that such anobjection can be taken by the respondents. ( 6 ) NOW adverting to the reasons given by the learned Commissioner for dismissing the application of the petitioner. According to the impugned order, after the survey had beencarried out by the department in respect of the wealth tax onagricultural properties, the returns filed by the petitioner on 29/12/1970, could not he treated to be voluntary asthe affairs of the assessee had come to the notice of the authorities under the Act on 22/12/1970, i. e. , the date ofthe survey report. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of the contention that the order passed by the Commissionerwealth-tax and Othersis correct and that the petitioner was under a "constraint" tofile the returns as he "was likely to be caught" and hence thosereturns were not voluntary, relies on Hakam Singh and othersv. Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, (1980) 124 I. T. R. 228 (3 ). Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, (1980) 124 I. T. R. 228 (3 ). The facts in the said case were that on 22/11/1973, the business premises of the petitioner in that case weresearched by the Income-tax Department, and certain books werescized. Thereafter, the petitioner on 7/10/1974, filedreturns of income for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68,1968-69, 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Subsequently on 25/03/1975, a notice under section 148 of the Income-taxact was served on the petitioner. In due course, the Income-taxofficer initiated penalty proceedings for delay in filing the returnand for not filing the estimate of advance tax under ss. 271 (1) (a)and 273 (b ). Thereupon, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner under S. 273a for waiver or reduction of the imposablepenalty. I may note here that the provisions of section 18 (2-A)of the Wealth Tax Act are pari materia to section 273-A of theincome-tax Act. The Commissioner dismissed the application onthe finding that the filing of the return was not voluntary. Heheld that as admittedly the returns had been filed after the search,the provisions of section 273a were not attracted. A Divisionbench of the Allahabad High Court found that the petitionerknew that according to the books seized at the search the incomeof the petitioner was above! the taxable limit and it was onlywhen these books came into the possession of the departmentthat the petitioner filed returns of income. It was held, "theinference that the returns were filed because the petitioners werepromoted to save themselves for the consequence of not filingthe return and that they were prompted by a sense of fear doesnot appear to be unjustified". ( 7 ) THE question in the said case, therefore, was whether areturn filed out of sandnse of fear of levy of penalty or of prosecution is voluntary. Negativing the contention of the petitioner itwas held in the facts of that case that the return filed were notvoluntary. ( 8 ) MR. Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, however,has invited my attention to the decisions of various High Courtsin support of his argument that in the facts of the present casethe Commissioner failed to exercise his jurisdiction by holdingthat the returns were not voluntary. His plea is that returns filedby the. assessee even after the issuance of a notice under section14 (2) of the Act but prior to its service has been held to bevoluntary. His plea is that returns filedby the. assessee even after the issuance of a notice under section14 (2) of the Act but prior to its service has been held to bevoluntary. [see Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. Commissioner ofwealth Tax U. P. and another, (1975)98 I. T. R. 359 (4 ). 1. In thesaid case, admittedly the assessee had filed his return for theassessment years 1964-65 to 1970-71 on 2/12/1971. On 6/12/1971, the assessee was served with a set ofsix notices under section 17 of the Act, all dated 29/11/1971, issued by the Wealth Tax Officer calling on the assessee tofile his returns for the years 1965-66 to 1970-71. The Commissioner passed the order on the assessee s application undersection 18 (2a) on 7/09/1972. He waived the penaltyfor the year 1964-65 as no notice under section 17 had beenissued for that year but for the returns of the subsequent yearshe held that as the notice under section 17 had ben issued priorto the submission of the returns those could not be held to bevoluntary. It was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabadhigh Court that a notice cannot be said to have been issued toa person unless he is served with it. Therefore, an assessee whomakes a full disclosure of his wealth before notice is served, isentitled to the benefit of section 18 (2a ). The order of the Commissioner was accordingly set aside on the. "round that he failedto exercise his discretion under the provisions of the Act. ( 9 ) ANOTHER case cited by Mr. Ahuja is Madhukar Manilalmodi v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Gujarat-V, and another (1978) 113 I. T. R. 318 (5 ). The facts of that case were that theassessed filed his return of net wealth under section. 14 (1) ofthe Act on 29/11/1971, for the assessment year1971-72. For. the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 the returnswere filedby him on 19/09/1973. a few days beforethe assessment for 1971-72 was completed. It was the admittedwealth-tax and Otherscase of the parties that the returns for the said two years werefiled only after the assessee was asked during the course of theassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1971-72 tofile those returns. The application made by the assessesto the Commissioner under section 18 (2a) praying that theminimum penalty imposable be waived, was reected onthe ground that those returns were not voluntary. The application made by the assessesto the Commissioner under section 18 (2a) praying that theminimum penalty imposable be waived, was reected onthe ground that those returns were not voluntary. A Divisionbench of the Gujarat High Court has held that by themore fact that a return has been filed under the advice, suggestion or even at the behest (otherwise than by a notice undersection 14 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act) it does not cease to be avoluntary return. In this judgment it has been held that thoughsection 18 (2a) (a) uses the word voluntary , the said word hasto be read with the expression "made full disclosure of his netwealth". It has been observed that, "that condition which thelegislature has imposed is that in cases where an assessee has,prior to the issue of notice to him under section 14 (2), filed areturn but has not done so within the time limited by law, hemust satisfy the Commissioner that he has made full disclosureof his net wealth voluntarrily and in good faith. The word voluntary , therefore, has not to be read in the context of the filing ofthe return". ( 10 ) THIS judgment of Gujarat High Court has been distinguished on facts by the Allahabad High Court in Hakam Singh scase (supra ). It was observed that the advice or suggestion of theauthorities concerned to file a return for the remaining yearswithout there being any proof that that authority had given anyinducement or assurance that the penalty would be waived couldbe held to be anything but voluntary. ( 11 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case itcannot be held that merely because there was a survey of agricultural properties showing that the petitioner also owned agricultural land, he was under a constraint to make full disclosure ofhis net wealth. Further, the survey report cannot, in my view,be equated with seizure of books of account of the assessee fromsearch of his premises. The returns for the year 1965-66 to1970-71 were filed without notice. The petitioner had made fulldisclosure of his net wealth. The authorities did not detect anyconcealment therein and, therefore, it has to be held that thereturns for the said assessment years were voluntary. The returns for the year 1965-66 to1970-71 were filed without notice. The petitioner had made fulldisclosure of his net wealth. The authorities did not detect anyconcealment therein and, therefore, it has to be held that thereturns for the said assessment years were voluntary. ( 12 ) THE result of the above discussion is that the petition isallowed and the impugned order of the learned Commissionerpassed on 30/12/1974, relating to the assessment years1965-66 to 1970-71 is set aside. The matter is sent back to thecommissioner of Wealth Tax for decision afresh of the aplication dated 29/12/1973, copy Annexure d , made bythe assessee in so far as it relates to the assessment years 1965-66to 1970-71. For the Petitioner : ( 13 ) NO order as to costs.