@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.@mdashPetitioners are challenging Exts. P9 and P10 whereunder the Commissioner of income tax has rejected the revision petition filed by both the petitioners filed u/s 264 of the income tax Act against income tax assessment for 1993-94. Petitioners are partners of a Firm by name M/s. Thoppil Finance. Income returned by the petitioners for the assessment year 1993-94 was towards remuneration and salary received from the said Firm. Assessments were completed accepting the returns of the petitioners vide order dated 28-2-1996. However, there was dispute in the Firm''s assessment which was settled vide Ext. P3 order dated 25-9-1997. The claim of the petitioners is that while issuing order by the Settlement Commission for the three years 1990-91 to 1993-94, the Settlement Commissioner took the figures from profit and loss account and added to thereon salary and remuneration paid to partners and thereafter made certain additions on estimation basis. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is that when remuneration and salary paid to the petitioners was disallowed in the hands of the Firm, the same cannot be assessed in the hands of the partners as individual income. In short, petitioners'' grievance is against double assessment of same income.
2. Senior standing counsel appearing for Revenue contended that the Commissioner has no authority to interfere with the decision of the Settlement Commission and petitioners'' assessments were made based on returns filed. Moreover, he justified the finding of the Commissioner that there is no express disallowance of salary or remuneration paid to the partners by the Settlement Commission in their order. It is seen from the sequence of events that settlement of Firm''s liability by the Settlement Commission was subsequent to completion of assessment of the partners. Therefore Settlement Commission which has settled the assessment of the Firm for the very same assessment year 1993-94 would have taken note of individual assessment in the name of the partners namely petitioners representing remuneration and salary. It was for the Firm to have brought this to the notice of the Settlement Commission. The individual assessment of the partners on income received in the form of remuneration and salary from the very same Firm and whatever relief that was eligible should have been considered in the assessment of the Firm in settlement. Therefore, the Commissioner rightly assumed that the Settlement Commission has not made any specific disallowance u/s 40(b) of the IT Act and so much so he rightly declined to interfere with the assessment orders of the two petitioners which were completed based on returns filed. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned revisional orders issued by the Commissioner of income tax. The O.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No costs.
