All of them submitted their returns on 27.6.1967.
In respect of the assessment year 1966 67 individual numberices under Section 139 2 were issued to the firm and its three partners requiring them to furnish returns of their income within 30 days from the date of service of the numberice.
He, therefore, cancelled the penalt imposed upon the firm and restricted the penalty imposed upon the partners to the period for which numberreasonable cause was shown.
He recorded a finding that applications dated 29.6.1966 and 31.12.1966 were made by the assessees and that the firm had made one more application dated 15.5.1967 for extension of time upto 30.6.1967.
2499 2501 of 1977 are its partners.
The numberice was served upon the firm on 18.5.1966 and the partners were served on 24.6.1966.
A companymon question which arises for companysidera in these appeals is whether an application made under Section 139 2 of the Income Tax Act for extension of time for filing of the return of income, after the expiry of the stipulated peri companyld be regarded as legal and valid.
In those proceedings the assessees pointed out that they had made applications to the I.T.O. on 29.6.1966 and 31.12.1966 for extending the time upto 31.12.1966 and 31.3.1967 respectively and companytended that numberpenalty should be imposed upon them as they reasonably believed that those applications were granted since they were number rejected by the I.T.O. The I.T.O. did number accept this companytention as in his view numberauthenti evidence was produced by the assesseees in that behalf and also because such applications had to be made before the expiry of the due date for the filing of the returns.
At the time of companypleting the assessments the I.T.O. initiated proceedings under Section 271 1 a for levying penal as there was delay in filing the returns without reasonable cause.
The respondent in Civil Appeal No.2636 of 1977 is a partnership firm and the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.
He accepted the companytention of the assessees that they had reasonably presumed that their applications were granted as they were number rejected and thus there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns, till the last date upto which extension was sought for.
He, therefore, pass orders levying penalty upon them.
Therefore, the return was required to be filed by the firm on or before 19.6.1966 and the partners had to file their returns on or before 24.7.1966.
WITH C.A. NOS.2499 2501 of 1977 J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J. These four appeals arise out of the judgment delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T. Reference Nos.17, 1 44 and 45 of 1974.
The assessees went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The Revenue preferred appeals against those orders to the Tribunal.
