9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income for the asst. yr. 1992-93 as per regular books of accounts maintained by it being below the taxable limit, it was not under obligation to furnish the return and, therefore, the said income having been recorded in the regular books of accounts could not be considered as undisclosed income. In support of his plea he relied on the provisions of s. 158BB(1)(a)(B) of the Act according to which where the income did not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax but the entries relating to the same have been recorded in the books of accounts maintained in the normal course of the business was to be excluded in arriving at the undisclosed income. The counsel for the assessee also relied on various decisions furnished in the paper book. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Representative. 7. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in furnishing the appeal was because of the wrong information given by the AO as well as the Asstt. Registrar of the Tribunal. Elaborating upon the informations the assessee's counsel submitted that in the demand notice supplied by the AO it is mentioned that if the assessee intends to appeal against the order under s. 158BC, he may present an appeal to the Tribunal, New Delhi, within "sixty days" of the receipt of that order and, therefore, the assessee was made to believe by the AO that he can furnish the appeal before the Tribunal within a period of sixty days. The another safety measure pleaded by the counsel was that the Asstt. Registrar of the Tribunal, Agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been furnished after the expiry of time for which no justifiable explanation has been given is liable to be dismissed in limine. Admittedly, the demand notice and assessment order for block period were received by the assessee on 28th Feb., 1997 and, therefore, the appeal could be furnished latest by 30th March, 1997. The appeal was furnished on 5th May, 1997, which is late by 36 days. The assessee's submission that assessee was given to understand by the AO, as per notice of demand, that the appeal before the Tribunal can be furnished within sixty days is devoid of any merits, firstly, because the assessee is to furnish the appeal within the period prescribed under the law and not within the period as told by the AO, moreso, when the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunication is only to apprise the assessee so that he can make a petition for condonation, if already not made, and to give an opportunity to explain the delay. The failure of Asstt. Registrar, therefore, cannot be taken as (a ground for) condonation of delay. 13. So far as the present case is concerned, the counsel for the assessee was not only apprised of the Revenue's submission that appeal was barred by time by 36 days but he was allowed sufficient opportunity in spite of there being no petition for condonation of delay, to explain the delay not only during the course of hearing of the appeal but also after the Bench was over—when the assessee's counsel reappeared along with a copy of demand notice and defective memo issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
