P T JEROME Vs. ITO ALLEPPY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, two in number, were assessed to income-tax in respect of the assessment year 1955-56 (Previous year: the twelve months ending on 31-3-1955) as an association of persons. THE assessment was by the 1st respondent, the Additional Income-tax Officer, Alleppey. THE assessment order is Ext. A dated 24-2-1956.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners there was a partition in 1926 and S. 9 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, precludes their income from property being assessed as that of an association of persons. S. 9 (3) i? in the following terms: "where property is owned by two or more persons and their respective shares are definite and ascertainable, such persons shall not in respect of such property be assessed as an association, of persons, but the share of each such person in the income from the property as computed in accordance with this section shall be included in his total income".

(3.) THE petitioners then invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under S. 33a (2) of the Indian income-Tax Act, 1922. THE order on the revision petition is Ext. C dated 26-2-1958: "this revision petition is against the order of the appellate Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, dated 10-9-1957 declining to entertain a fresh ground of appeal regarding the assessment of property income in the hands of the assessee. THE assessee's claim as stated in the revision petition is that the income of Rs. 7,303/- assessed under property for 55-56 in the status of an Association of persons should have actually been assessed in equal shares separately in the hands of each of the members of the Association. THE petitioner did not raise this objection in the grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the first instance. He, however, took up this contention as a fresh ground at the time of appeal; but as no reasonable cause was given for failure to include this ground in the original appeal petition, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to entertain this fresh ground of appeal. 2. I have carefully gone through the relevant records of the case. Even in the revision petition the assessee has not stated the circumstances why he failed to include this ground in the original appeal petition. I therefore consider that the Appellate Assistant commissioner was justified in not entertaining the fresh ground of appeal in question. 3. I do not accordingly see any reason to interfere".