1980 (7) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in stationery. The return of income was due under s. 139(1) of the Act by 31st July, 1974. It was actually filed by the assessee on 28th Jan., 1975. In between this period, the assessee filed two applications for extension of time, one on 9th Aug., 1974 and the other on 30th Sept., 1974 asking for extension upto 31st Dec., 1974. No order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iled after the expiry of the due date for the return and, therefore, the ITO was not bound to pass any order on those applications. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Venkata Krishnaiah and Co. vs. CIT (1). In reply the assessee's learned counsel relied on the order of the AAC and submitted that the assessee's bona fide impress .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... objection. It may be, as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of T. Venkatara Krishnaiah and Co. vs. CIT, A.P.(1), that omission of the ITO to pass any order on the assessee's applications for extension of time does not have the effect of extending the time, but in the absence of any communication from the ITO, the assessee would be reasonable in entertaining a bona fide belief that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X