TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act, by which the application was dismissed on the ground that it was out of time and no satisfactory explanation had been given for the delay. The facts which are not in. dispute are that the appellant-company, was dealing in a large number of commodities like paper, machinery, cotton textiles, tea, etc. In the financial year 1951-52 relevant for the, assessment year 1952-53, the company started making transactions in jute. The turnover of the export of jute during that year amounted to about Rs. 42 lakhs. As the company was receiving a large number of enquiries, from foreign countries in connection with the supply of jute, it entered into a contract on December 28, 1951, for forwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively. The assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 was completed on January 21, 1956, and for the assessment year 1953-54 on February 27, 1958. After the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1953-54, which was given on July 7, 1964, the company filed an application dated August 21, 1964, before the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33A of the Act giving all these facts and pointing out that the Tribunal had itself realised the disadvantage to which the assessee would be put by the new point having been allowed to be raised and the appeal having been decided on that point with regard to the assessment year 1953-54. It was emphasised in this application that the revision of the Income-tax Officer's order for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an assessee for revision of an order passed by any authority subordinate to him, made within one year from the date of the order or within such further period as the Commissioner may think fit to allow on being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, call for the record of the proceedings and make such order as he may think fit subject to certain restrictions which it is unnecessary to mention. The company, in the present case, can be said to have been prevented for sufficient cause from making an application under section 33A within a period of one from the date of the order of the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment year 1952-53 because of the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed time, and this has always been understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole of the period of delay (vide Ram Narain Joshi v. Parameshwar Narain Mehta ). Therefore, the finding recorded by the authority that the appellants have failed to establish sufficient cause for their inaction between May 2, 1952, and the respective dates on which they filed their present applications is fatal to their claim. These observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The appeal fails and it is dismissed but, in view of the entire circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this court. Appeal dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
