TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that it had failed to give notice in Form No. 10 within the time prescribed by rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? " The assessee is a trust. It came into existence on March 1, 1962. Up to the assessment year 1970-71, the trust used to derive income from donations and interest but in the succeeding year 1971-72, the assessment year relevant, the assessee had also income from property. In order to claim exemption under s. 11(2) of the said Act, the assessee in the first instance, filed an application on June 28, 1971 (annex. 'D' with the statement), praying to the ITO that for the assessment year in question, return was to be filed before June 30, 1971, but time be extended up till July 31, 1971. It attracted no response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any such application in the requisite form before the ITO before that date, the Tribunal held that the authorities below were justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee under s. 11(2)(a). Such view was apparently taken since the assessee had not in its hand the grant of extension of time up to July 31, 1971, as originally prayed for, and further uptill August 31, 1971, as extendedly prayed for. The matter was then brought by the assessee to this court and he succeeded in claiming a mandamus in obedience to which the question above-noted has been referred to this court for answer. As is plain from the proviso to s. 139(1) of the Act, the assessee has been conferred a right to make an application in the prescribed manner to the ITO p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of the time originally fixed, or the time for which extension had been granted, the return of income shall be furnished by the assessee. In other words, if the assessee is a person who intends to claim benefit under s. 11 of the Act, he must do so before the time for filing the return stands run out, whether fixed originally or on extension. Thus, for the purposes of construing r. 17, the language of r. 13 and the statutory Form No. 6 can, neither be ignored nor isolated. If the date for furnishing the return of income can be extended retrospectively for the purposes of s. 139 and be a legally extended date for furnishing the return of income, it logically follows that notice under r. 17 to be given to the ITO under subs. (2) of s. 11 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of time for furnishing the return and for continuance of registration of a firm, it was held that when the ITO had not communicated any order to the firm on receipt of the application for further extension, the assessee could well have entertained the belief that its request for extension of time had been granted, and since the Commissioner had not applied his mind to such a relevant aspect, the order of the Commissioner revealing such manifest error of law was quashed. Duty was cast on the ITO to intimate to the assessee whether its request for extension of time for furnishing the return had been granted or refused. Thus, the predominant view in various High Courts is that the assessee can well presume that his request for extension o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
