TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 though due on 30th June, 1977. There was, according to the ITO, a delay of 12 months in the filing of return. He issued notice under s. 274 read with s. 27f asking the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied for late submission of return. There was no compliance to this notice by the assessee. The ITO, therefore, proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 4,330. 3. The AAC found that the assessee had sought extension of time which was not considered by the ITO at all. In fact for the asst. yr. 1977-78, five such applications were filed and the return was filed before the date of final extension. The AAC felt that the penalty was wrongly levied and, therefore, cancelled the same. 4. For the asst. yr. 1978-79 the ITO levied pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications were filed in the same form seeking similar extension from time to time till return of income was filed on 30th Jan., 1980 of the asst. yr. 1978-79. The first application in Form No. 6 for the asst. yr. 1977-78 was filed on 24th June, 1977 which was well before the time when the return was due and in that sense the return was intended to be filed on 24th June, 1977 which was well before the time when the return was due and in that sense the assessment return was intended to be filed under s. 139(1) of the IT Act. None of these applications were replied to by the ITO. On the other hand, none of the applications wee rejected by the department. It should, therefore, be presumed that the time asked for from time to time was granted. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Bom), in which the Bombay High Court held that if the Department chooses not to reply to the assessee's application within the time applied for by the assessee, the time is deemed to be extended as prayed for by the assessee, and he would be justified in assuming that his application has been granted by the department. He also drew our attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar (1985) 44 CTR (SC) 110 : (1985) 151 ITR 433 (SC) in which the Supreme Court held that if the ITO had levied interest upto the date of the filing of the Return, it must be presumed that the ITO had extended the time for filing the returns after satisfying himself that it was a case for extension of time and in this vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
