Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1985 (5) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o why penalty should not be imposed on the ground of failure to file the return of income within time under s. 139(1) and 139(2). The assessee replied that the books of account were not under the control of the company and that the auditing was completed on September 10, 1964, and the same was placed before the general body meeting on October 23, 1964. The ITO refused to believe that the books of account for the calendar year 1962 (i.e., for the relevant assessment year), were also taken away by the official receiver. The ITO observed that the books of account were returned on September 19, 1963, to the assessee while the return was filed on January 2, 1965. The first ground was rejected by the ITO. The second ground was also rejected as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nection with a suit for winding-up of the company and the books were released only on September 15, 1963, when the audit for the said year was taken up. Audit was completed some time in February, 1964. It was only thereafter that the audit of the account books for the year under consideration could be taken up and the audit report was received only on September 10, 1964. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the audit of the account books for the year under appeal was completed only in September, 1964, the delay in the filing of the return up to September, 1964, was not without reasonable cause. Thus, on this point also, the departmental appeal failed. On the aforesaid facts, the following questions of law have been referred to this cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts are kept on any other system, a description of the system should be given and a copy of any statement which corresponds to the profit and loss account and balance-sheet on the mercantile accounting system must be attached to the return. A copy of the auditor's report under s. 227 of the Companies Act, 1956, must also be attached to the return. Thus, unless the audit is completed and the auditor's report and balance-sheet are made available, a company cannot furnish the return of income. The concurrent findings of the AAC and the Tribunal are that for the immediately preceding assessment year (1962-63), the books of account were in the custody and possession of the official receiver appointed in the suit for winding-up and the said books....