9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... municated to the assessee on 5th Sept., 1981 and that the date of service was mentioned in the memos of appeal as 4th Sept., 1981 by oversight. Revised memos of appeals were also filed before us duly certified. On these facts, therefore, the appeals are entertained as having been filed within time. 3. The assessee, which is a registered firm, runs a restaurant at 22-AMG Marg, Allahabad. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 the return was due to be filed on or before 31st July., 1976 though it was actually filed on 28th Feb., 1977 after a delay of six months. Similarly for the asst. yr. 1977-78 though the return of income was due to be filed on or before 31st July., 1977 it was actually filed on 27th Dec., 1977 after a delay of 4 months. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C had not taken into account the fact that extension applications had been filed in time and that the fate of these was never conveyed to the assessee. Next he submitted that if no order was communicated to the assessee on the extension applications, the assessee could presume that the extension sought had been granted. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jan Daood Co vs. ITO (1978)113 ITR 772 (All). He submitted that penalties could not have been imposed by the ITO merely on the ground that the assessee did not find out the fact of the extension applications which the assessee alleged to have moved before the ITO. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have also carefully peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the record of the ITO and the reasons for which extension of time was sought would also have been mentioned therein. Even apart from that the assessee could show that it has reasonable and sufficient cause for not being able to file the returns in time. We find from the perusal of the order of the ITO that he has not considered this essential requirement for the imposition of penalties under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act, but he imposed the penalties merely for the reason that the assessee did not care to find out as to what happened to the extension applications said to have been moved by it from time to time by simply presuming that extensions would have been granted. The ITO was not justified in doing so. The AAC was equally not justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
