1968 (8) TMI 10 - SC - Income Tax

Company filed an application before the CIT under s. 33A for revision of the assessment - application which was filed under s. 33A of the Act was completely barren of an explanation for this delay which had to be properly and satisfactorily explained - Assessee appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of application under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
- Claim of speculative loss set-off against other income.
- Delay in filing application for revision under section 33A.
- Consideration of sufficient cause for delay.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment dealt with an appeal against the dismissal of an application under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The appellant-company, engaged in various commodities, including jute transactions, suffered a loss recorded in its books for the year ending March 31, 1953. The company claimed this loss in its return for the assessment year 1953-54. The Income-tax Officer initially viewed the loss as speculative, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the set-off against other business income. Subsequently, during the appeal for the assessment year 1953-54, a new point was raised by the department that the loss was not allowable in that year. The Tribunal permitted this new point and allowed the department's appeal. The company then filed an application under section 33A on August 21, 1964, after the Tribunal's decision on July 7, 1964, seeking revision of the Income-tax Officer's order for the assessment year 1952-53. However, the application was dismissed on the ground of delay without a satisfactory explanation.

The appellant argued hardship due to the delay, emphasizing that the company could have claimed the set-off during the assessment year 1952-53. The Court acknowledged the company's case for invoking the revisional jurisdiction but noted the lack of explanation for the delay between the Tribunal's decision and the application filing date. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted the necessity of establishing sufficient cause for delay. The Court found the delay unexplained and fatal to the appellant's claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Despite the circumstances, each party was directed to bear its own costs in the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of timely applications under section 33A and the requirement to provide a sufficient cause for any delay. The Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for revision, despite recognizing the company's legitimate claim for set-off during the earlier assessment year.