9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee replied that applications for extension of time were filed several times and delay was due to the illness of the senior partner and so the accounts could not be completed. The ITO held that the assessee was a habitual defaulter since 1973-74 and a notice under s. 148 was served on the assessee on 30th Sept., 1983. Ultimately, he held that the assessee had no reason for late filing of return a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the expiry of the due date for filing the return that could not be taken into consideration and no belief could be entertained that the assessee was under an impression that his application for extension has been granted. He relied upon the following decisions: 1. T. Venkata Krishnaiah Co. vs. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 297 (AP) 2. Assam Frontier Veneer Saw Mills vs. CIT 1976 CTR (Gau) 170 : ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in that case the extensions were asked for before the earlier time had expired which was not so in this case. 3. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai (1982) 31 CTR (Guj) 244 : (1983) 142 ITR 84 (Guj) has decided that if no reply is given to an extension application then the assessee could have reasonably entertained the belief that his application was grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tating "for the reasons given below it is not possible/has not been possible" provides for an application after the expiry of the time limit. Moreover, the time limit prescribed under the IT Act in this connection is for filing the return and not for filing an application for extension o time. Therefore, the assessee's right cannot be curtailed. The above decision of Patana High Court on which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
