9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so contended that the prayer for extension of time was made in Form No. 6 from time to time. Even the extension was granted to the assessee upto 30th Sept., 1985 on the petition filed on 27th June, 1985 praying for extension upto 31st Dec., 1985. It was further contended that two more Form No. 6 were filed on 30th Sept., 1985 and 31st Dec., 1985 praying for extension upto 31st Dec., 1985 and 30th June, 1986 respectively. Before the AO the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gordhandas Jethabhai (1982) 31 CTR (Guj) 244 : (1983) 142 ITR 84 (Guj). However, those contentions did not find favour with the AO. The AO noted that the prayer for extension of time filed on 27th June, 1985 requestin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that the further extension sought by it was granted automatically. The learned CIT(A) also noted that there were no evidence to prove the dispute amongst the partners or even the proof of discontinuation of the firm. The learned CIT(A) accepted the extension of time only upto 30th Sept., 1985 the date upto which the AO had granted the extension of time and accordingly, directed the AO to recalculate the penalty. Being still aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri M.J. Shah, the learned counsel of the assessee, strongly objected to the order of the learned CIT(A). According to him, the learned CIT(A) did not consider the matter in right perspective. He said that there was dispute among the partners and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisions including a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as follows: 1. CIT vs. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai; 2. Lachman Chaturbhuj Java vs. R.G. Nitsure Ors. (1981) 132 ITR 631 (Bom); 3. Harmanjit Trust vs. CIT (1984) 43 CTR (P H) 223 : (1984) 148 ITR 214 (P H); 4. Sunderdas Thackersay Bros. vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 290 : (1982) 137 ITR 646 (Cal); 5. CIT vs. Surinder Kumar Pramod Kumar Ors. (1991) 100 CTR (P H) : (1992) 193 ITR 71 (P H); and 6. CIT vs. Ajanta Electricals (1995) 126 CTR (SC) 144. According to the learned counsel of the assessee, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decisions of various High Courts and Supreme Court it was manifest that non-filing of the return could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the learned CIT(A). According to him, the assessee could not be said to have been under bona fide belief that extension of time was granted because its prayer for extension of time as sought for for the first time was only partially granted. According to him, the order of the CIT(A) was justified and that required no interference. 7. On due consideration of submissions of both sides and the material available in the appeal record, we find that there is merit in the case of the assessee. From the facts of the case it is to be noted that the assessee asked for extension of time from time to time. The AO made communication relating to first prayer only granting extension of time upto 30th Sept., 1985 against the prayer upto 31st Dec., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
