1980 (7) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble cause for the delay in filing the return for that year and the facts in the year under appeal 74-75 were identical. 2. The assessee is an HUF. For the Asst. yr. 74-75 the return was due under s. 139(1) by 30th June, 1974. The return was actually filed by the assessee on 25th May, 1976. The ITO rejected the assessee's written explanation dt. 24th May, 1976 for the delay in filing the return a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t be mixed up with the other. Apart from this, according to the recent decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in "Chhat Mull Aggarwal vs. CIT (1), the admission made by an assessee is not binding on him and the AAC is bound to go into the merits of the case. In the present case, there was no admission made for the Asst.yr. 1975-76. Consequently, the AAC was wholly unjustified in dismissing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X