1983 (3) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;         These eleven appeals, all preferred by revenue in the cases of as many as 7 different assessees were taken up together for hearing. In appeals relating to some of the assessees, two assessment years are involved. 2. W.T.A No. 64 (Del)/1982 : 1974-75 is the assessment year concerned.31st December, 1973is the corresponding valuation date. Asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firm prevented the assessee from filing in time the return of net wealth. Said explanation was turned down by the IAC as unsatisfactory. 3. Assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner (A). Commissioner went into the matter at great length and came to the conclusion that assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the return in time. He, therefore, allowed the appeal a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcise. In any case, the default or delinquency punishable u/s 18(1)(a), WT Act is not the failure of the assessee to seek extension of time for filing the return. 5. Second point raised on revenue's side was that the partnership firm concerned had in any case furnished its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 28th February, 1975, i.e., prior to return on 22nd April, 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hed proper return of income, also described as revised return on29th March, 1976only. Present assessee, as indicated earlier filed the return of net wealth on31st March, 1976. The fact remains that assessee firm had extensive business run by some 22 or 23 branches at various stations. There is no evidentiary material to indicate that the assessee had access to the balance-sheet of the firm as on t....