9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while processing the assessment noticed that there was no application filed in Form No. 12 and informed the assessee of his intention not to grnat continuation of registration vide notice dt.16th June, 1978. This was responded to by the firm through Shri G.D. Kalra, one of the partners, who submitted that he had got Form No. 12 completed and signed from all the partners and had given the same to the Accountant, Shri Satish Kumar for delivering in the Income-tax Office, Faridabad along with the return for asst. yr. 1976-77. In support an affidavit was submitted. The assessee also informed the ITO that unfortunately there being no evidence in support of Form 12 having been filed with the return, a fresh Form No. 12 signed by all the partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fresh order dt.1st Feb., 1985, the ld. AAC held that there was sufficient and valid reason for filing Form No. 12 late and, therefore, condoing the delay he directed the ITO to allow continuation of registration. 4. For the Revenue Shri N.B. Singh very vehemently and strenuously argued that the assessee having resorted to unfounded and unbelievable stories and having not filed Form No. 12 with the return as such the ITO rightly declined registration. 5. For the respondent Shri Y. P. Mahna, Advocate very effectively pleaded that whatever may be the circumstances and may be that there was lot of confusion emanating from the assessee's Accountant's version and the partner's averments, but the fact remained that there was a valid reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable the assessee had filed another form and that delay in submission of the same be condoned. The ITO somehow simply did not think it fit to consider the assessee's alternative request, inspite of there being clear provision in that regard under s. 184(7) of the Act. 7. On the peculiar facts of the case and keeping in view all facets, in our considered view, the AAC rightly came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for condonation of delay, whatever may be the reasons which prompted him to take such view. The assessee, according to us, more than established its case for considering its claim on the basis of the application submitted on28th Jan., 1978. Therefore, we find no occasion to interfere with the AAC's order. 8. In the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
