Invalid return due to missing accounts; late extension not valid reason. Revenue wins, order restored.

The court found that the return filed without accompanying statements of accounts was invalid as per Rule 12(1)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Additionally, the court held that an application for an extension of time filed after the due date cannot be considered a reasonable cause for delay in filing the return. Both issues were decided in favor of the Revenue, and the Income-tax Officer's order was restored. No costs were awarded, and a copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the return filed on May 31, 1972, without accompanying statements of accounts.
2. Consideration of the application for extension of time filed on October 1, 1971, in deciding the reasonableness of the delay in filing the return.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Validity of the Return Filed on May 31, 1972
The first question addressed whether the return filed on May 31, 1972, was valid despite not being accompanied by the statements of accounts supporting the income shown in the return. The court noted that the return was not produced before them and relied on the facts recorded by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The return was described as "bald" with no basis for the estimated income of Rs. 80,000. Rule 12(1)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, mandates that returns must be verified in the manner indicated in Form No. 2, which includes attaching statements of accounts. The court held that without these statements, the return could not be taken seriously and was essentially no return at all. The Tribunal's view that the return was valid was thus incorrect.

Issue 2: Application for Extension of Time Filed on October 1, 1971
The second question considered whether the application for extension of time, filed on October 1, 1971, could be considered in deciding the reasonableness of the delay in filing the return. The Tribunal assumed that the assessee might have believed the time was extended until March 31, 1972, but the court disagreed. The court emphasized that any application for extension filed after the due date loses its sanctity and cannot be assumed to have been granted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had found no reasonable cause for the delay, and the Tribunal had not overturned this finding. The court concluded that the Tribunal was wrong to consider the late application as a reasonable cause for the delay.

Conclusion:
Both questions were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The order of the Income-tax Officer was restored, and there was no order as to costs. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, as required u/s 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---