1964 (3) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT

Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the fixed deposit of ₹ 5 lakhs in the names of S. P. Agarwalla did not represent the concealed income of the assessee firm was justified in law?

Held that:- We are not in this case called upon to consider whether any question of law arises from the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the two deposit receipts in the names of Raghunath Prasad Agarwalla and B. N. Gupta, but it would be impossible to hold that the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the deposit made on October 11, 1944, in the name of Sheo Prasad Agarwalla was so perverse that no reason able body of persons properly instructed in the law could have reached it. The circumstances relied upon by Mr. Sastri do raise suspicion, but suspicion cannot take the place of evidence. Appeal dismissed.