only contention in this appeal is that AAC of IT had erred in not accepting assessee s application under s. 146 of IT Act, 1961 and in refusing to cancel assessment and proceed to make fresh assessment in accordance with law. It appears that assessee s case had earlier been fixed on 29th Jan., 1980 and 23rd June, 1980 for hearing by ITO. There was no compliance on either of case dates. IT again issued notice under s. 143 (2) of IT Act, 1961, fixing case on 21st Aug., 1980. notice was duly serve don partner Shri Kilash Nath on 7th Aug., 1980. There was, however, no compliance on date of hearing. assessment, therefore, came to be made under s. 144 of Act on 22nd Aug., 1980. assessee then moved application under s. 146 of Act. It was claimed before ITO that Shri Kailash Nath had fallen ill and, therefore, he could not comply with notice on 21st Aug., 1980. ITO rejected application on ground that if Shri Kailash Nath had fallen ill, there was other partner Shri Mahadeo Prasad, who could comply with notice. assessee appealed to AAC. It was submitted before latter that Shri kailash Nath had suffered from Gastro-entitis on 15th Aug., 1980 and, therefore, he was unable to appear before ITO. It was submitted that he was taking treatment at his own please and was not admitted to any hospital. AAC held that Shri Kailash Nath was not totally incapacitated so as to prevent him from communicating with order partner of Advocate of firm and that he was also in position to seek adjournment by presenting letter to ITO. He, therefore, confirmed view of ITO that assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from complying with aforesaid notice. assessee is now in appeal before us, It was submit before us that Shri Kailash Nath resided at Jahangirabad, while officer of ITO was situated at Sitapur. It was also submitted that other partner also resided at distance of about 12 Kms. from office of ITO and that they could not communicate with latter. It was further submitted that assessee s illness was supported by medical certificate of 15th Aug., 1980. After hearing parties, we are in agreement with findings of lower authorities. assessee admittedly fell ill on 15th Aug., 1980. hearing was fixed on 21st Aug., 1980. His illness could not be said to be of such type that could not communicate with ITO during period of about six days available to him and seek adjournment of case. Besides, earlier history of case is also against assessee. We are therefore, of firm view that assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from complying with notice issued under s. 143 (2) of Act. ITO was, therefore, correct in rejecting application under s. 146. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** KAILASH NATH RAJ KUMAR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER