9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t July, 1974. Since the declaration was filed out of time the assessee filed a written explanation for condonation of delay as per letter dt. 31st Jan.,1975., It was explained in the said letter that the assessee was under the belief that the application had been made in time and therefore the delay in furnishing the declaration was not a mala fide one. The firm was genuine and it had been granted registration year after year. As such, the delay was required to be condoned. The ITO, however rejected the explanation on the plea that benefit of registration to a firm is a special benefit conferred only if certain conditions are satisfied and the explanation given by the assessee regarding the delay in furnishing the declaration was not consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration because even if the mistake on the part of the counsel may considered for the sake of argument constituting a reasonable cause for the delay but not the negligence of the counsel which was the case before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the negligence of the counsel was clear from the fact that in the return there was a column where a list of the statements filed alongwith the return was to be recorded which had not been property filled up and there was no mention of any thing. As such, the explanation given by the assessee and by his counsel did not constitute a reasonable cause for the delay. Thus according to the Revenue neither there was a case for maintainability of the appeal nor a reasonable and sufficient cause for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This issue had come up before us in ITA No. 1024 of 1975-76 in the case of M/s Bharat Engg. Corporation Moga and by our order dt. 26th Oct., 1978. We had discussed in detail the reasons that an appeal lies against such an reasons that an appeal lies against such an order. Adopting the reasons given by us in that order, we hold that an appeal lies against an order made under s. 184(7) by the ITO refusing to condone the delay taking into consideration the amended provisions of w.e.f 1st April, 1971. The AAC was therefore, fully justified in entertaining appeal of the assessee. 7. As regards the merits of the case, we find that this is a simple case of an omission through inadvertence by the learned Counsel for the assessee to submit form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
