TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid and allowed to be withdrawn only if the Income-tax Department allowed the same as an admissible deduction in the assessment of the firm. The petitioners filed returns for the years 1980-81 to 1983-84 returning the various amounts received by them as salary from the firm. These returns were accepted in toto as they were and the assessments completed on the petitioners for these years, copies of which are exhibits P-1 to P-14. When the firm's assessments were taken up for these years, the Income-tax Officer disallowed a part of the salary paid to the petitioners as excessive and unreasonable. The firm went up in appeal and the appeal was allowed in part reducing the disallowance to a certain extent. The firm accepted the assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a specimen, written in pursuance of exhibit P-33, that the fourth respondent did not find its way to condoning the delay in filing the applications for rectification under section 119(2). The petitioners retorted by exhibit P-36 dated March 28, 1989, telling the fourth respondent-Board that they had become functus officio in the matter after the files were transferred to the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the jurisdiction of the second respondent over Kerala ceased and the new Chief Commissionerate was established at Ernakulam so that the petitioners wrote exhibit P-37 on December 2, 1989, to the Chief Commissioner at Ernakulam (third respondent) to take up their applications early. They got a reply from the third respondent, namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Having heard counsel on both sides, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order, exhibit P-35. As pointed out in the counter-affidavit, this is a case where the returns filed by the petitioners were all accepted and the assessments completed only on that basis. It is true that in the firm's assessment part of the salary paid to the petitioners was disallowed as excessive and unreasonable. But the petitioners challenged their assessments on the very same ground as in the rectification applications before the Commissioner of Income-tax and lost by the order, exhibit P-39, dated November 27, 1986. They did not challenge exhibit P-39. They accepted it. There is, therefore, no cause for rectification as alleged by the petitioners. Apa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, appeal to me. I am of the opinion that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in not affording an opportunity to the petitioners to be orally heard. It is evident that the applications for rectification and the petitions for condonation of delay are engineered by the disallowance in the firm's assessment of portions of the salary paid to the petitioners as excessive and unreasonable. Perhaps the attempt is to see if anything could be salvaged in the petitioners' assessments though those assessments are based strictly and fully only on the returns filed by them without any change whatsoever therein. Those assessments also stand confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in revision for valid reasons. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
