TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies timely filing rule: late applications valid if not rejected. Presumption of extension if no response.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Surinder Kumar Parmod Kumar And Others</h3> The court clarified that applications made after the due dates for filing returns are valid, with the Income-tax Officer required to either grant or ... Appeal To Tribunal, Return Issues Involved: The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Validity of applications made after the due dates for filing returns. 2. Presumption of extension granted if no rejection communicated. 3. Requirement of incorporating all reasonable causes in the explanation submitted to the Income-tax Officer. 4. Determination of default period from due date to filing date.Issue 1: Validity of Applications Made After Due Dates: The case involved the question of whether applications made after the due dates for filing returns are valid in law. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments to determine that applications for extension of time could be made even after the prescribed period, and the Income-tax Officer was obligated to either grant or reject such applications. Since no rejection order was communicated to the assessee, it was deemed that the request for extension had been accepted, justifying the delay in filing the return.Issue 2: Presumption of Extension Granted: The second issue revolved around the presumption of extension granted if no communication was received from the Income-tax Officer regarding the extension applications. The court held that if no communication accepting or rejecting the application was received within a reasonable time, the assessee could presume that the extension applications were duly granted. This view was supported by previous judgments and was deemed valid in law.Issue 3: Requirement of Incorporating All Causes in Explanation: Regarding the requirement to include all reasonable causes in the explanation submitted to the Income-tax Officer, the Tribunal found that the absence of one or more causes in the explanation did not imply that such causes did not exist. The assessee was not obligated to state all causes in the explanation, and the Tribunal could consider causes not explicitly mentioned by the assessee. This interpretation was in line with established legal principles and previous court decisions.Issue 4: Determination of Default Period: The final issue, which was considered a question of fact, related to determining the default period from the due date to the actual filing date. However, in light of the decisions on the previous issues, this question was deemed unnecessary for further adjudication.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the validity of applications made after due dates, the presumption of extension granted in the absence of communication, the flexibility in incorporating causes in explanations, and the impact on determining default periods. The court's decisions were based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant provisions under the Income-tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
