9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough in the past till 1981-82 and subsequently also assessee's claim of registration has been accepted. When the return was filed for the year under consideration, Form No. 12 was not filed alongwith the same, for reason best known to the assessee. The ITO was more than good to the assessee who vide his three letters dt. 19th Nov., 1983, 19th Jan., 1984 and 14th Feb., 1984 enquired of him whether requisite form No. 12 was filed and in case it was so, the proof be adduced. None of these letters was cared for by the assessee. Ultimately, the assessment was framed under s. 143(1) on 25th Feb., 1984 accepting the total income returned by the assessee but the status assigned was that of URF which was served on the assessee on 5th March, 1984. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration was rejected, the assessee should have not got the benefit of registration in 143(3) proceedings but he was fair enough to say that Form No. 12 was filed in the office on 24th March, 1984 and 143(3) assessment was framed on 31st March 1984. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand submitted that 143(1) assessment once quashed may be because of assessee's application for depreciation claim etc., did not exist as such and assessment which is to be taken into account is 143(3) which was framed on 31st March 1984 and as the Form No. 12 was filed on 24th March 1984, registration was rightly allowed. He submitted that there was an affidavit filed by the assessee regarding handing over of Form No. 12 to assessee's ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority i.e. AAC is co-terminus. On the strength of affidavits that of one of the partners and the accountant which were not disproved, according to us, he was justified in condoning the delay. For the proposition that up to the assessment, Form No. 12 could be filed, the term "alongwith its return" came to be incorporated by their Lordships of Patna High Court in the case of Purusottam Lal Kishori Lal vs. CIT (Patna) 1978 CTR (Pat) 204 : (1978) 115 ITR 37 (Pat). Observations from the head notes of the said case are as under : "....The term "along with its return" as it stood before 1st April, 1971, is merely directory and not mandatory. All that the legislature intended was that the return should be duly filed and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
