9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return of income was due under s. 139 (1) by 29th June, 1968, but on 25th June, 1968 the ITO served a notice under s. 139 (2). The first application in Form No. 6 was filed on 3rd Aug., 1968 seeking extension upto 30th Sept., 1968. There was no reply form the ITO. The question need not be further examined as the CIT (A), had already condoned this period. On 6th Aug., 1968, there were heavy floo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter on account of heavy floods, reconstruction of books of accounts took much more time then expected. However, every effort was made to file the return as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, these contentions were not acceptable to the ITO. 4. Shri Patel further submitted that in the course of appeal too the same facts were reiterated. The CIT (A) was good enough to hold that the delay upto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is sufficient evidence to indicate that atleast from 1st Oct., 1968 the assessee was straining every nerve to re-construct his records and had no motive in delaying the return. We fully realise the difficulties of a tax payer whose original records were substantially damaged on account of floods. We are of the opinion that the entire period from the due date to the date of actual filing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
