9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of order by Commissioner of Income-tax regarding revision petitions being barred by time and dismissal of application seeking condonation of delay. Analysis: The petitioners, a company, challenged the legality of an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, regarding the revision petitions being time-barred. The issue arose from the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48, where the income from properties let out to employees was assessed under different sections of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners claimed the income should be assessed as business income, a contention accepted by the Punjab High Court. This led to the reopening of excess profits tax assessments for the relevant years. The petitioners filed revision petitions long after the prescribed time, citing the revision of excess profits tax assessments as the cause for delay. The Commissioner, in his order, noted the timeline of events, including appeals to higher authorities, and reasons for not condoning the delay under the Act. The Commissioner held that the petitioners should have filed the revision petitions earlier, as they were aware of the possibility of an enhancement in 1961 when excess profits tax assessments were reopened. However, the High Court found this finding to be erroneous. The Court reasoned that the petitioners were well within their rights to exhaust remedies under the Excess Profits Tax Act before filing revision petitions. The pendency of appeals up to the Tribunal's decision was considered a valid reason for the delay. The Court set aside the Commissioner's order, remanding the matter for a fresh decision on condonation of delay. The petitioners were allowed to submit documents and affidavits in support of their plea, considering the misplaced records in the Commissioner's office. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, ordering a fresh decision on condonation of delay by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, for the assessment years in question. The petitioners were granted the opportunity to provide supporting documents, and the matter was remanded due to misplaced records in the Commissioner's office. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
