TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 947-48, the income from property let out to the employees of the petitioners had been assessed under section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), under the head " Income from property ". For the assessment year 1948-49, the petitioners claimed for the first time that the income from those properties let out to its employees should be assessed as business income of the petitioners under section 10 of the Act and not under section 9 of the Act. The plea was not accepted by the Department. However, this contention was accepted by the Punjab High Court. It was held that income from property owned by the petitioners which had been let out to its own employees was chargeable as business profits while the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on May 8, 1968. Those petitions admittedly had been filed long after the time provided for filing revision petitions. By a letter dated February 18, 1972, the petitioners were asked to show cause by February 25, 1972, as to why those petitions be not rejected as having been filed out of time. In their reply, the petitioners submitted that : " The revision of the income-tax assessments which were completed in the years 1943 to 1946, has become necessary because of the revised excess profits tax assessments done in 1967. It would be appreciated that the revision petitions in question could not have been made within one year of the original income-tax assessments which are sought to be revised. The cause for making the revision petitions aro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the year 1961, when the Excess Profits Tax Officer reopened the already completed assessments. But the assessee waited for another seven years for moving an application under section 33A of the old Act, a period utilised in questioning the very validity of the reopening of the excess profits tax assessments. " It is apparent that the learned Commissioner was of the view that the petitioners ought to have filed the revision petitions as soon as show-cause notices were issued by the Excess Profits Tax Officer in the year 1961. In my view, this finding is perverse. The assessment was revised by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, vide his order dated August 1, 1967. There was no occasion whatsoever for the petitioners to have challenged the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
