9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . yr. 1977-78 in question return was due to be filed by it on or before 31st July, 1977, whereas it was actually filed on 16th August, 1979. Accordingly, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 271(1)(a). In reply to the showcase notice, the assessee submitted that it did not receive any notice for filing the return : that the assessee filed return as below the taxable incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was filed. However, the ld. AAC observed that the ground of the assessee being continuously ill had not been taken before the ITO and that there was nothing to show that the assessee was ill during the entire period of 24 months. Regarding the filing of Form No. 6 though the assessee filed photostat copy of the receipt dt. 30th July, 1977, ld. AAC observed that it had not been filed before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly. 5. On the other hand, the ld. departmental representative placed reliance on the orders of the income-tax authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee having filed a photostat copy of the extension application dt. 30th July, 1977 before ld. AAC, it is established that an extension application was moved by the assessee before the due date of filing the return. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts which are relevant as also the additional evidence we set aside the order of the ld. AAC and restore the matter to him for deciding the assessee's appeal afresh on merits after examining the assessee's application in Form No. 6, the affidavit filed before us and after giving and opportunity to the department of hearing and after examining whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
