Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Coming to the question No. 3 which deals with the cash credit of Rs. 11,000 entered in the name of the son-in-law of the assessee, Mr. Choudhuri contends that the department having rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amount shown in the name of his son-in-law belonged to him, it was entitled to infer that it was an income of the assessee from other sources. It was a question of fact and if having regard to the entire material on the record the assessing authority came to the conclusion that it was an income from other sources of the assessee himself, the High Court will not examine the question of fact. It is not necessary to refer to the various authorities of the Supreme Court laying down the powers and scope of this court under section 66 of the Income-tax Act. It is sufficient to point out that the facts proved or admitted may provide evidence to support further conclusions to be deduced from them, which conclusions may themselves be conclusions of fact and such inference from facts proved or admitted could be matters of law. This court would be entitled to interfere if it appears that the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts founds are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to the determination in question. In the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the question considered by the Supreme Court was whether there was any material to justify the assessment of Rs. 30,000 from out of the sum of Rs. 61,000 representing the value of high denomination notes which were encashed on the 18th day of January, 1946. It was held that the decision of the Tribunal should not rest on suspicion but on legal testimony and the conclusion of the Tribunal that it was impossible for the assessee to have sixty-one high denomination notes was pure surmise and had no basis in the evidence. The assessee having furnished a reasonable explanation for the possession of the high denomination notes, there was no justification for having accepted it in part and there was no material to justify the assessment. The case put forward by the assessee is that the authorities had not clearly kept in mind the question of burden of proof in such cases and there was no material before the income-tax authority to come to the conclusion that the money did not belong to the son-in-law of the assessee. In the account books of the assessee the amount is entered as a deposit by Nisi Kanta Saha, his son-in-law. An affidavit was sworn by him before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in which he categorically stated that the amount was deposited by him. Shri Nisi Kanta Saha was interrogated by the Income-tax Officer, Shillong, presumably behind the back of the assessee and there also he reiterated that the amount belonged to him. No materials have pointed out by the departmental counsel which would go to show that the statement of Nisi Kanta Saha should not be believed. It was not for the assessee to prove by positive evidence the source by which Nisi Kanta Saha got the money. The reasoning of the Income-tax Officer is that as Nisi Kanta Saha had no source by which he could get the amount, it must be assumed that the money did not belong to him and must be the income of the assessee. The assessee placed material to support the entries in his account books. Nisi Kanta Saha has made a statement to the effect that he deposited the amount with the assessee and in the absence of any other material to disprove the fact that the money was deposited by Nisi Kanta Saha with the assessee, it cannot be said that the amount was the income of the assessee from some undisclosed source. If it is shown from the account books that a certain money has been received by the assessee during the assessment year, the burden lies on him to prove the source and the nature of the particular receipt. It is for the assessee to show that the receipt is not in the nature of an income, but in cases where the amount is shown to have been deposited by a third party, prima facie it cannot be regarded as a receipt by the assessee-much less a taxable income, and in that event it is for the department, if they want to tax it as an income of the assessee, to show by some materials that the amount standing in the name of the third party does not belong to that third party but belongs to the assessee. By merely holding that the assessee has not established the source of receipt of that amount by the third party, the department cannot contend that it has placed material which leads conclusively to the result that it was an income of the assessee from some undisclosed source. No other material has been pointed out to show that the amount was not deposited with the assessee by his son-in-law. Reliance was placed on the case of Mangalchand Gobardhan Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case the question as framed assumed that if it was established as a fact that the money did not belong to the third party, it was an income of the assessee from an undisclosed source. In that case also however it was laid down that there must be some material, before the taxing authorities could treat the amount as an income of the assessee. On the materials before them it was found in that case that the money belonged to the assessee. Here, as I have already pointed out, except the circumstance that Nisi Kanta Saha had no means to get that amount, there is no other material before the assessing authorities from which it could be inferred that the money belonged to the assessee and thus it was a taxable income from some other source. I would, therefore, answer question No. 3 in the negative.