Court upholds Commissioner's decision on assessment orders, finding no grounds for interference. Petition dismissed.

The court upheld the Commissioner's decision not to interfere with the assessment orders of the petitioners, based on the returns filed and the Settlement Commission's actions in settling the firm's liability. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's revisional orders, concluding that the petition lacked merit and dismissing it without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for income-tax assessment for 1993-94.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, partners of a firm, challenged the rejection of their revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the income-tax assessment for 1993-94. The petitioners' income for the assessment year was from remuneration and salary received from the firm. The assessments were completed based on the returns filed, and there was a dispute in the firm's assessment which was later settled. The petitioners argued against double assessment of the same income, claiming that the remuneration and salary disallowed in the firm's assessment should not be assessed as individual income of the partners.

2. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner had no authority to interfere with the Settlement Commission's decision and that the assessments were made based on the filed returns. The Revenue justified the Commissioner's finding that there was no express disallowance of salary or remuneration paid to the partners by the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission settled the firm's liability after the partners' assessments were completed. The Commissioner assumed that the Settlement Commission did not make any specific disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act and declined to interfere with the assessment orders of the petitioners.

3. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's revisional orders. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it without costs. The judgment upheld the Commissioner's decision not to interfere with the assessment orders of the petitioners, based on the returns filed and the Settlement Commission's actions in settling the firm's liability.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning behind the court's decision.

---