TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was continuation of registration of the assessee firm ? " The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The assessee was being assessed as a registered firm for several years. In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee filed a declaration under section 184(7) of the Act on February 11, 1972, for continuation of registration of the firm. According to the requirement of law, such a declaration had to be filed along with the return. The due date for filing the return was up to September 30, 1971. The assessee had applied for extension of time for filing of return up to March 31, 1972. The Income-tax Officer observed that the assessee had not applied for ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Appellate Tribunal and it was contended on behalf of the Department that the assessee had not filed any application in Form No. 6 for extension of time for filing the return. On behalf of the assessee it was contended that the assessee had properly applied for extension of time for filing the return and the assessee held a receipt for having sent the application by registered post. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was satisfied after looking into the evidence that the assessee had applied for extension of time for filing the return and so the Appellate Tribunal held that the amended provision of section 184(7) of the Act applied and they agreed with the finding of the Appellate Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom Chaibasa, vide Receipt No. 579 dated September 8, 1971. It was also submitted before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that another application was sent on December 3, 1971, under certificate of posting and the return was filed on February 11, 1972, along with Form No. 12 for continuation of registration. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the time granted for submission of return under section 139(1) or 139(2) of the Act will also be granted for purposes of declaration of continuation of the registration under section 184(7) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no dispute that Form No. 12 was filed on February 11, 1972, along with the return of income. He, therefore, held that the time was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t once the assessee applied for extension of time and the Income-tax Officer does not reject the prayer for extension of time for filing the return and does not communicate it to the assessee, then it has to be presumed that the assessee is right in presuming that extension of time has been granted. In this view, I am supported by a decision in the case of Lachman Chaturbhuj Java v. R. G. Nitsure [1981] 132 ITR 631, where it has been held by the Bombay High Court that if the Department chooses not to reply to the assessee's application for extension of time for filing return within the time applied for by the assessee, time is deemed to have been extended as prayed for by the assessee and he would be justified in assuming that his applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
