TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that if no rejection is communicated to the assessee, he is justified in presuming that the extension applications having been made were duly granted by the Incometax Officer ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is not required to incorporate all the reasonable causes in the explanation submitted by him to the Income-tax Officer and that whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in considering a cause not so incorporated in the explanation ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. At the instance of Revenue, four questions of law reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment have been referred to this court for its opinion. Another fact which may be adverted to at this stage is that the assessee sought extension of time for filing of return by filing applications dated September 27, 1971, March 28, 1972, September 19, 1972, April 28, 1973, and September 30, 1973 up to December 30, 1971, June 30, 1972, October 31, 1972, September 30, 1973, and November 15, 1973, respectively. The extension applications were made by the assessee much a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Officer was under an obligation in law either to grant or reject the application for extension of time for filing the return and further that such an order, if passed, should be conveyed to the assessee. In this case, since the rejection order was not conveyed to the assessee by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee could be taken to be under a reasonable belief that his request had been acceded to and therefore, there was no delay in filing the return. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the Department. Question No. 1 is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Karam Singh's case [1977] 110 ITR 726, wherein it has been held as under (headnote) : "From the application form pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s challenged the correctness of the view taken by this court and for that proposition relied upon the following three judgments : Venkata Krishnaiah (T.) and Co. v. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 297 (AP), Assam Frontier Veneer and Saw Mills v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 479 (Gauhati) and CIT v. S. P. Viz Construction Co. [1987] 165 ITR 732 (Pat). The later two judgments have relied upon the reasoning given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Venkata Krishnaiah's case [1974] 93 ITR 297 (AP). This court, in Harmanjit Trust's case [1984] 148 ITR 214, has specifically disagreed with the view taken by their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Venkata Krishnaiah's case [1974] 93 ITR 297. Their Lordships of the Patna High Court in S. P. Viz Constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fused. Thus, the predominant view in various High Courts is that the assessee can well presume that his request for extension of time for furnishing the return had been granted, unless the Income-tax Officer well in time communicates to the assessee his refusal. And it is precisely for this reason that Form I. T. N. S. (Annexure 'F' with the statement) has been provided for use of the Income-tax Officer to convey grant or refusal of extension of time. The lone voice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Venkata Krishnaiah and Co. v. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 297, holding the contrary view that the Income-tax Officer was not bound under the provisions of any Act or the Rules made thereunder to pass any order on the application for extension of time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 977, in reply to the show-cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act and the assessee having not raised any plea regarding such belief, it was not open to the Tribunal to entertain this ground as it had not been taken as one of the grounds in reply to the show-cause notice and, therefore, the same did not exist at all. The Tribunal repelled this argument and held that such a plea could be taken by the assessee at the appellate stage as well. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in taking the view to this effect. It is not necessary for the assessee to state all the matters in its explanation and the absence of one or more causes in its explanation would not mean that such cause did not exist at all. The assessee ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
