Belated C Forms must be examined under the proviso to Rule 12(7), not rejected solely for delay.

The amended time limit for furnishing C Forms did not extinguish the authority's discretion under the proviso to Rule 12(7) to accept belated forms on sufficient cause. A rejection based only on late production, without examining the explanation for delay or exercising the retained statutory discretion, was unsustainable. The assessment therefore required reconsideration by applying the proviso to Rule 12(7) and the relevant legal principles governing condonation of delay in filing C Forms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority was justified in rejecting the C Forms as belated without considering the proviso to Rule 12(7) and the power to condone delay.

Analysis: The assessment order rejected the C Forms only on the ground that they were produced beyond the prescribed time limit, without examining the explanation for delay or the discretion preserved in the proviso to Rule 12(7). The rule, as amended, reduced the time for furnishing C Forms, but left the proviso intact. The retained proviso shows that the power to accept belated forms on sufficient cause continued to survive after amendment. The order also did not discuss whether the delay offered by the assessee was satisfactory or whether the authority had exercised the statutory discretion in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rejection of the C Forms as merely belated was unsustainable, and the assessment required reconsideration in the light of the proviso to Rule 12(7) and the relevant legal principles.

---