9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act up to the assessment year 1973-74. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner filed a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuing the registration with the department. But the firm, however, failed to file the return of income for the assessment year 1974-75. In the result, a notice under s. 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the petitioner on February 5, 1975. Even then no return was filed. In the result, on March 13, 1975, respondent, 3rd ITO, Hubli Circle, Hubli, proceeded to assess the petitioner-firm under s. 144 of the Act. It is claimed for the petitioner that on March 14, 1975, itself on coming to know of the ex parte assessment order under s. 144 of the Act, return for the relevant assessment year 1974-75, toget ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was signed on March 14, 1975, whereas the assessment order under s. 144 of the Act was made on March 13,1975, which was served on the firm only on March 21, 1975. Therefore, he informed the firm that an application under s. 146 of the Act could not be anterior to the date of service of the assessment order made under s. 144 of the Act. The petitioner-firm was informed that there was no application under s. 146 of the Act of which the 2nd respondent could take cognizance. Therefore, the question of passing an order did not arise. Aggrieved by the letter dated July 29, 1975, issued by the respondent, the petitioner-firm has moved this court under art. 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of mandamus or direction or an order in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the seal of the ITO, Hubli Circle, Hubli (rubber stamp), bears that date evidencing the receipt of that return together with the enclosures thereto. That should be believed because the return itself has been dated March 20, 1975, and it could not have been filed on March 14, 1975. If this position is made clear what follows from that is that an application was made in one of the documents attached to the return filed on March 26, 1975, under s. 146 of the Act. The fact that it has not been separately signed in the trading and profit and loss account in itself will not render the application bogus one as long as the firm itself claims that it has made such an application. It may be a matter of convenience that the application was typed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in the application or in the writing, the officer should have disposed of that application on merits, as it was a duly made application. Having failed to do so, he has failed to discharge the legal duty cast upon him under the Act. Even an improperly made application must be rejected by an order made under s. 146 of the Act for reasons to be stated. Such rejection cannot assume the form of a communication as at Ex. A. In the result, ignoring Ex. A, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the application which is to be found in the trading and profit and loss account annexed to the return filed on March 26, 1975, in the office of the 3rd respondent, within two months from the date of receipt of this order, on its merits and by a form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
