9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question; (2) that the IT Department had initiated proceedings under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 in the assessee s case and the case of his other family members and that such proceedings lasted for about 3 year and all the books of account etc. were seized in the process and because of which the assessee could not gather material for preparing his return of income in time, that ultimately the assessee was going to have refunded as per his estimate and, therefore, according to him even if there was slight delay, the Revenue would not be prejudiced. 2. The aforesaid reasons were rejected by the ITO by pointing out, inter alia that the assessee had not led any evidence to prove that he could not get the information about his income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been seized, it would not be possible for the assessee to be in a position to prepare the accounts property and to file the return of income in time. The delay of 13 months in the circumstances state above does not appear to be without reason. The fact that the assessee did not have relevant material with him on the basis of which he could have prepared the basis of which he could have prepared the return and that such seized material was in the custody of the Department constituted, in our opinion, reasonable cause which prevented the assesses from filing the return of income in time. We accept the assessee s explanation on the account. 4. The assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court and in whose case, therefore, it was obligatory to follow the ratio of the aforesaid decision. Instead the ld. CIT (A) cited the following decisions in which, according to him, the contrary stand had been taken and followed them: 1. CIT vs. Gujarat Travancore Agency 1975 CTR (Ker) (FB) : (1976) 103 ITR 149 (Ker) (FB) 2. CIT vs. Gangaram chappolia, 1975 CTR (Ori) 25 : (1976) 103 ITR 613 (Ori) 3. Addl. CIT vs. Darga Pandarinath Tuljayya Co. (1977) 107 ITR 850 (AP) 4. Jaggannath Singh vs. CWT (1980) 122 ITR 114 (Pat) 5. Hanutram Ram Prasad, Dibrugah (1978) 112 ITR 187 (Gau) 6. Smt. Kamlavati vs. CIT Central (1978) 111 ITR 248 (Pb) 7. Nemi Chand Ganeshmal vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 438 (MP) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
