TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to it and one of that exception is that said presumption of existence of assets and it might have extinguished after passing of the long time, which is also sufficient rebuttal to the original presumption of existence of the assets in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the binding judgment of J.K.Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. [1994 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] the considered opinion that the question is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that in these cases, the addition of Rs.23,59,461/made from assessment years 1963-64 to 1970-71 cannot be held to be the assets in the hands of the assessee after the period of more than eight years and, therefore, in these cases no tax can be imposed on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l available surplus available with the petitioner during the assessment year 1953-54 to 1976-77 was declared to be Rs.21,15,164/based on the assessed income of the petitioner for all the above three years. 4. According to the assessee, the assessed income of the petitioner included all the intangible additions made to the income of the petitioner were ultimately found to be Rs.23,59,461/during the assessment years 1963-64 to 1970-71. The said undisclosed incomes assessed in income tax assessment proceedings are sought to be taken for taxation under the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment year 1985-86 to1988-89. The petitioner's contention was that the said undisclosed income which is intangible property of the assessee cannot be kept alive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered as Tax Cases. The peculiar facts of the case required us to avoid this procedure of calling question from the Tribunal because of the reason that the issue which has been raised by the petitioner appears to have already been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vrs. J.K.Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. Ors.( 1984) 146 ITR 552(SC) and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the matter to the Tribunal for sending it back to this Court for deciding the question of law, which, in our opinion, has already been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that the assessment of income of the petitioner was based on the assessment made by the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of such secret profits but the question is whether, from such absence of explanation, any presumption can be raised that such secret profits were still retained by them on the valuation date in the circumstances of the case? In the first place, the analogy of the rule applicable in income-tax cases would be inapplicable in wealth-tax cases inasmuch as in the former case the unexplained cash credit item is regarded as income of the assessee from undisclosed source having accrued to him during the accounting year while in the latter case only the valuation date is relevant on which date the assets (secret profits) must be held by the assessee and it will not do that such asset was held by him some time during the concerned year. Secondly, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original order and learned counsel for the Revenue before us relied upon the judgment of Patna High Court delivered in the case of CWT vs. Mishrilal Jain (who is the predecessor of the present petitioner) reported in (1986) 161 ITR 583 (Pat.) and submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of J.K.Cotton Manufacturers Ltd.(supra) has been considered by the Patna High Court in the petitioner predecessor's case and distinguished the said case and held that the presumption of existence of property once has been drawn then it can be rebutted by positive proof and cogent evidence and those proofs are with the assessee and since in the said case he failed to rebut the proof of existence of intangible assets, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umption drawn of existence of fact, obviously in the line of the reasoning given in the provisions of the Evidence Act can stand rebutted by counter presumption of extinction of such wealth which was possessed long ago to be in the hands of the assessee. It is true once a presumption is drawn, that can be rebutted by evidence by the person against such presumption goes and it is one of the well settled proposition of law, but there may be exception to it and one of that exception is that said presumption of existence of assets and it might have extinguished after passing of the long time, which is also sufficient rebuttal to the original presumption of existence of the assets in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the binding j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
