Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 1958 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1958 (4) TMI 9 - SC - Income TaxWhether on the evidence adduced by the appellant it could be said that the notes were part of the assets received by him from his father? Held that:- Having come to the conclusion that the books of account of Ratangarh could not be accepted, the Tribunal went on to observe that from 1926 to 1945 the only source of income of the appellant and his father was interest earned on moneys deposited in bank. It came to that conclusion apparently because the books of account produced did not disclose any other source of income. The Tribunal also found that about 1945 the appellant had in his bank a sum of about ₹ 8 lakhs to 10 lakhs and that being so, in view of the only source of income mentioned earlier, it was impossible to believe that he had another seven lakhs of rupees in notes in December, 1945, as alleged by him. The Tribunal then held that in these circumstances, the appellant's uninvested cash was likely to be between ₹ 1,50,000 and ₹ 2,00,000 out of which a sum of ₹ 1,40,000 at the most could have been in high denomination notes. In this view of the matter the Tribunal held that out of the high denomination notes of the total value of ₹ 2,68,000 encashed by the appellant in January 1946, notes worth ₹ 1,40,000 could have been his capital assets and the balance of ₹ 1,28,000 must have been his undisclosed income. The Tribunal therefore directed that the appellant must pay tax on the sum of ₹ 1,28,000. The learned counsel for the appellant criticised this part of the Tribunal's judgment as based on mere speculation. We cannot help feeling that this criticism may be partly justified but we do not appreciate how it assists the appellant. It does not, in our view, in any way affect the Tribunal's finding on the question as to whether the appellant had proved that the notes had devolved on him on his father's death. The Tribunal in this part of the judgment was really making a concession to the appellant and gave a benefit to him to which he was strictly not entitled in view of the Tribunal's findings on the evidence led by the appellant. We are unable to hold that the Tribunal's judgment is liable ; to be set aside because it held that the whole of ₹ 2,68,000 was not taxable. Appeal dismissed.
|