9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court in I.T.R. No. 123 of 1987 (CIT v. Seeyan Plywoods [1991] 190 ITR 564). Thus, under the law the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act. But, on September 14, 1984, the Income-tax Officer (first respondent) rejected the claim for deduction under section 80HH of the Act for the assessment year 1982-83. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Calicut, was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Income-tax Officer to examine the claim under section 80HH afresh. On March 17, 1988, the Income-tax Officer served a letter on the petitioner s chartered accountant pointing out that the assessee has not furnished the report of audit in Form N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so thereunder being that time should be granted only from the date of first assessment. There was no bar for the Income-tax Officer to pass the impugned order on March 25, 1988. Sub-section (9) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, together with its proviso reads as follows : Where the Assessing Officer considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective, he may intimate the defect to the assessee and give him an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of fifteen days from the date of such intimation or within such further period which, on an application made in this behalf, the Assessing Officer may, in his discretion, allow ; and if the defect is not rectified within the said period of fiftee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of the subsequent assessment. The above dictum has affirmed by the Supreme Court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 759. In that case, the question of the date from which interest is payable to an assessee on the excess advance tax that was paid by him, arose for consideration. It is true that under the proviso to section 139(9), it is contemplated that the assessee should rectify the defect before the expiry of the period of 15 days but before the assessment is made. In this case, the question is whether the assessment was deemed to have been made on September 14, 1984 (exhibit P-2), or on March 25, 1988 (exhibit P-6). There is no dispute that Form No. 10C was required to be produced along with the returns. But, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
