9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said firm came into existence from 1st November, 1975 and the accounts were closed on 30th June, of every year. The return for the asst. yr. 1977-78, however, covered the period from 27th May, 1975 to 30th June, 1976. Therefore, the working results also involved a period when the firm was not in existence. The return was at a negative figure showing a loss of Rs. 1,30,910. The ITO computed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard the representatives of the parties at length in this appeal. It is argued that the actual difference between the returned and the assessed loss was not more than Rs. 1 lac as had been pointed out by the ITO. For this purpose, a chart was given to us, which is at page 1 of the Paper Book and prima facie goes to support the contention of the assessee. Next, it was argued that even if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dt. 18th March, 1982 written by the representative of the assessee wherein these pleas have been explained at length. It, however, appears that this letter was not considered by the CIT, because the order of the CIT is dt. 17th March, 1982. The order further shows that the assessee had made a petition seeking adjournment for a week which was refused as, according to the Commissioner, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner was denied to it and even the written submissions made by it were not considered. 4. Accordingly, we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the CIT and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision after considering the various submissions made by the assessee in its reply and such other material as may be produced before the Commissioner in this behalf. 5. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
