1980 (5) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Oct., 1975. In the course of hearing before the ITO it was pointed out that the application had to beneficiary filed in Form No. 11. Accordingly, the assessee filed the necessary Form No. 11 on 28th Nov., 1978. Alongwith the letter application the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. The ITO refused the assessee's claim for registration on two grounds. Firstly, he held that the appropriate form for the application for registration was Form No. 11 and not 11A. Secondly, no Form No. 11 was filed up to the due date and there was no ground for condoning the delay. The assessee pleaded before the ITO that Form No.11A was filed well in time and if the ITO considered that it was not the appropriate form he should have given an ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w taken by the AAC that the mater was not appealable was erroneous. On merits, Shri Puranik pointed out that the application in Form No. 11A was filed on 20th Oct., 1975 which was well in time. He submitted that it was only a clerical error that Form No. 11 was not filed and, therefore, the delay in filing Form No. 11 should have been condoned and the register allowed. 4. Shri C.P. Joshi, appearing for the Revenue, supported the order of the AAC. He submitted that the assessee could not claim acquisition opportunity for rectification of Form No. 11A because application in Form No. 11A was not the proper application in this case. In support of this, Shri Joshi relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Ganga Motor Service vs. CIT(3....