R.M. Mehta, Vice President - (1.) THE following ground was initially raised in this appeal directed by the Revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) : "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) had erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though no order under Section 12A(a) was passed."
(2.) Subsequently by means of a written communication dt. 18th July, 2002, an additional ground was raised and which runs as under : "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though the assessee had been banned on 10th Dec., 1992 for a period of two years under Section 6 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.". The aforesaid ground has been admitted by means of an interim order of even date.
(3.) BEFORE we proceed to deal with the grounds certain facts are required to be set out and these are that the assessee was required to file the return of income for the year under consideration on or before 10th Oct., 1993, but since no return was filed, a notice under Section .142(1) was issued on 30th March, 1994, asking the assessee to file the return along with requisite details. No return came forth and a notice under Section 142(1) was issued again on 18th Sept., 1995. On 5th Oct., 1995 i.e. the date of hearing, the authorised representative of the assessee attended and submitted that the books of account had been seized by the Police and which had been released only on 29th Nov., 1994. The explanation therefore was that under the aforesaid circumstances, the return could not be filed and an adjournment was sought for 25th Oct., 1995. On this date also, no return was filed and a show-cause notice was issued proposing to deny the benefit under Section 11 and the case was finally adjourned to 31st Oct., 1995 on which date again there was no compliance since nobody attended and nor was the return filed.;