9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yr. 1973-74. 2. The assessee was served with a notice under s. 139(2) on 6th July, 1973. The assessee asked for time for filing the return and it was granted time till 30th Sept., 1973. The assessee again applied for time and it was granted till 15th Nov., 1973 and the assessee was informed accordingly. Since no return was filed, ex-parte assessment was made on 18th March, 1974. The assessee app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, 1974 and on that account, the assessee could not file his individual return of income. The counsel could not given the dates on which the other two firms filed the returns of income but he stressed that till the share income from Sujatha Silk House was known to the assessee, he could not file his own return of income and for this proposition, he placed reliance on the Mysore High court ruling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he share particulars from the firm was correct, the assessee would have applied for time when he was assisted by an IT Practitioner. This reason for refusing an application under s. 146 cannot be sustained. If an application for extention had been filed and it had been rejected by the ITO, still the ITO could have passed an ex-parte assessment. However, on facts, we are satisfied that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree firms and also some individual income as in this case. The ruling applies with full force here. We therefore, hold that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to file the return. We accordingly allow the appeals set aside the assessment under s. 144 and allow the application under s. 146. We direct that the assessment shall be made afresh. Both the appeals shall be treated as al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
