9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Form No. 12 for continuation of registration was also filed on 30th June, 1984. The assessee's previous year ended on Diwali and, hence, the previous years for the two years under consideration and the preceding assessment year ended on the following dates: Asst. yr. Date 1983-84 15.11.1982 1984-85 4.11.1983 1985-86 24.10.1984 Form No. 12 for the asst. yr. 1985-86 is claimed to have been filed on 5th June, 1985. The assessee filed the returns of incomes for all the three years on 30th March, 1986 showing the income as under: Asst. yr. Amount 1983-84 Nil 1984-85 11,060 1985-86 20,080 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 154 on 29th Oct., 1986 in which it was claimed that the assessee could not comply with the notice of the ITO on 25th Aug., 1986 as the signatory of the letter Shri G.L. Kumawat, Advocate was ill for which a medical certificate dt. 1st Aug., 1986 was enclosed. It was explained that this constituted a good and sufficient cause for not attending ITO's office and for not furnishing any reply. It was further explained that Form No. 12 for the asst. yr. 1985-86 had been filed on 5th June, 1985 and this fact was also mentioned in the return submitted by the assessee which should have been looked into before refusal of continuation of registration. It was further submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not complying with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2th Aug. 1986 allowed time only till 25th Aug., 1986 and, hence, this was against provisions of law. He further submitted that for the asst. yr. 1985-86 the ITO had said that no Form No. 12 was filed when the receipt dt. 5th June, 1985 proves that Form No. 12 had been filed. He submitted that no finding had been given by the ITO in the order under s. 154 whether Form No. 12 was filed or not filed. The learned counsel referred to the Circulars dt. 29th July, 1964 and 26th June, 1985 of the Board wherein the Board had directed that if registration for an earlier year had not been allowed and for the subsequent years the assessee had filed Form No. 12 in time, presuming that registration for earlier year would be allowed, and in case the regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s brought to the notice of the concerned authority, it had to be rectified. The learned counsel argued that the order of the ITO under s. 154 was in violation of principles of natural justice and was illegal because before passing that order the ITO had not allowed an opportunity of being heard, according to the provisions of s. 154(3) of the IT Act. The learned counsel conceded that although there was no specific provision for giving a personal hearing year yet giving a personal hearing was inherent as per the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Dhabhai vs. CWT (1980) 15 CTR (Raj) 14 : (1980) 121 ITR 224 (Raj) and in the case of Shree Singhvi Bros. Ors. vs. Union of India Ors. (1990) 83 CTR (Raj) 229 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below and submitted that if the assessee was not satisfied with the order under s. 185(1)(b), he should have sought relief in appeal rather than moving an application under s. 154. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. From the arguments and the case law relied upon by the learned counsel as also form the Board's Circulars, copies of which have been filed before us, it is clear that the ITO is not entitled to refuse registration for a subsequent year merely on the ground that for the subsequent year application on Form No. 11 had not been filed and only Form No. 12 had been filed. However, one basic requirement remains which is also emphasised by the Board in its circular and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r its condonation for reasons given by him, no reference whatsoever has been made to any application on Form No. 12 which is claimed to have been filed, in the arguments before us, on 30th June, 1984 and a photo copy of which has been filed before us on page 3 of the paper book. Of course, for the asst. yr. 1985-86 Shri Kumawat has claimed in that letter that Form No. 12 was filed on 5th June, 1985 but the fact that this was noted on the top of the return form has also not been mentioned in that letter. Even in the so-called application under s. 154 dt. 29th Oct., 1986 while the assessee has claimed that it had filed an application on Form No. 12 on 5th June, 1985 for the asst. yr. 1985-86, there is no mention at all regarding application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
