1984 (6) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn. The alleged delay was of 67 months. The assessee's case was that he had filed a return on 22nd July, 1972 but could not produce the acknowledgement in respect thereof. A revised return was filed on 23rd March, 1977 alongwith revised returns for the asst. yr. 1969-70 to 1971-72. For the subsequent asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1977-78 the returns were filed as follows: Asst. yr. Filed on 1973-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uce any proof for filling the return in time. The AAC has confirmed that order. The material part of his order is as follows: "In the absence of any evidence to show that the original return of wealth was filed on 22nd July, 1972, it is not possible to accept the appellant's plea that the return was filed on the ground that the under self-assessment tax was paid on 21st Aug., 1972 as also notic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has submitted that he was present at the time of hearing and the register was not produced when the assessee was present nor was it shown to him. He has also submitted that he had written to the WTO on 10th April, 1984, 1st May, 1984 and 10th May, 1984 to have inspection of the register but it was not given the assessee advocate has emphasised the fact that the return for the subsequent yeas were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould be produced. All that the aforesaid decision of Bombay High Court states is that it is for he assessee to prove the filing of the return. If he is able to produce the acknowledgement well and good, but if he is not able to produce it he can certainly rely upon circumstantial evidence. In this case the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that assessee claim. The subsequent years 're....