1977 (7) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be filed under s. 139(1) of the Act on 30th June, 1969. The assessee applied for extension of time on 11th July, 1969 requesting time to file the return upto 31st Aug., 1969. The ITO extended time upto 15th Aug., 1969. The ITO at the time of completing the assessment initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act for delay of 5 months in filing the return. 3. For the asst. yr. 1970-71 the return under s. 139(1) was to be filed by 30th June, 1970 but the same was filed on 30th Aug., 1971. The assessee sought extension of time upto 30th Sept., 1970 but time was extended only upto 31st July, 1970. The assessee failed to file the return within the extended time. So according to the learned ITO there was delay of 12 months in fil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and as such extension of time was sought. It was also submitted that one of the partners, Shri Kanmal was a patient of high blood pressure and heart. During the period he was ill with the result that the account books could not be completed. Even Medical Certificate was filed showing that he was suffering from hear trouble during the years 1968 to 1972. According to the learned AAC the business continued for all the three years and account books were also written. According to the learned AAC there were no reasonable causes which prevented the assessee from filing the returns in time. Thus he sustained the orders of penalty. 7. Before us on behalf of the assessee more or less the same conditions were advanced which were put forth befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial available on record. If we consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that there were reasonable causes which prevented the assessee from filing the returns in time. 10. The firm constisted of two partners, viz., Shri Motilal & Shri Kanmal. In all the years the assessee moved applications for extension of time before the ITO, to file the returns. The ground in the applications was as under: "The partners, Shri Motilal, who is residing at Madanganj where the firm is doing its business is not conversant with IT matters and he has to depend for compilation of accounts on the other partner, namely, Shri Kanmal who stays at Ajmer for his treatment for blood pressure and heart dise....