1980 (2) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m of Rs 40,740. An application under s. 11(2) was filed with the ITO on 3rd Jan., 1974 which was beyond the statutory time limit. The ITO, therefore, held that the income over expenditure shall be assessed as the income of the assessee. 2. The assessee challenged this order before the AAC and connected that s. 11(2) does not prescribe any time limit for the filing of the form No. 10 and due to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... law and s. 11(2)(b)(ii) had been complied with, the delay should be condoned, particularly, when the CIT had cancelled the levy of penalty for late filing the return accepting the assessee's plea for reasonable cause for the delay. Alternatively, it was pleaded that s. 11(2)(a) only provided for notice writing in the prescribed manner and does not lay down any time limit for giving of the notice. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onable and the assessee has made out a case for the condonation of the delay. We are also of the opinion that this was only a technical or venial breach of the provision of s. 11(2)(a) which deserves to be condoned. 5. We also agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that as held by the Madras High Court in 86 ITR 282, a concession given by s. 11(2) to accumulate the funds of the trust f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X