Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. V. S. Desai, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the final authority on facts, has not taken into account the material evidence adduced by the parties. He ,further urged that the appellants had adduced the evidence of certain witnesses to establish that M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. were the selling agent and the persons who gave evidence had been appointed as sub-agents by them and that commissions were also paid to them by the selling agent. Particularly, the counsel pointed out that the evidence of Ram Sahai Dhir and Shiv Nand Verma has not at all been adverted to by the Appellate Tribunal. The counsel also urged that certain receipts produced Nos. 948 dated April 24, 1946 and 298 dated February 13, 1947 showing the payments made by M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. as commission to their sub- agents have not been even referred to by the Appellate Tribunal. The counsel further pointed out that even the High Court has held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made-no reference to 'the evidence of the two witnesses, nor has it adverted to the receipts claimed to have been given by the sub-agents. The High Court's view in this regard that it is not every piece of evidence available on record that must be dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal, is strenuously criticised by Mr. V. S. Desai. The counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Udhavdas Kewalram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City(1) where it has been held that the Tribunal has to act judicially and consider all the evidence in favour and against the assessee and that an order recorded on a review of only a part of the evidence and ignoring the remaining evidence, cannot be regarded as conclusively determining the questions of fact raised before the Tribunal. Mr. Desai, hence urged that the High Court was not justified in declining to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer questions Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. R. H. Dhebar, learned counsel for the Department has re- ferred us to the findings recorded by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the elaborate discussion contained in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and (1) [1967] 66 I.T.R. 462.

pointed out that all relevant material on record has been taken into account by all the authorities, including the Appellate Tribunal and that the appellants can have no grievance in that regard. All material facts have been considered and findings have been recorded on facts against the appellants that M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. rendered no service whatsoever as selling agent and that the materials on record conclusively establish that the appellants themselves were dealing with their sub-agents direct. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Income-tax Officer summoned Dr. Gokul Chand Narang under s. 37 of the Act to produce the correspondence with the sub- agents as well ,as the sugar mills. Only 13 letters spread over a period of three years written by Dr. Gokul Chand Narang in his personal capacity and in the letter heads of M/s Gokulchand Ram Sahai were produced. None of the replies to those letters from the sub-agents were produced. The counsel finally urged that the order of the High Court declining to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer questions Nos. 1 to 3 is correct.

Regarding Shiv Nand Verma, his evidence has only to be read to be rejected. Even according to the appellants M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. was appointed as Selling Agent only by the resolution dated July 26 1944. Apart from the very contradictory answers given by this witness, he has categorically stated in answer to a specific question put by the appellants that lie, was appointed even in 1942 as sub- agent by M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. on a commission of -0-4-0%. This evidence is absolutely false and of no use to support the case of the appellants because in 1942 M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. was not in the picture. The evidence of this witness does not establish that M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. had appointed him as their sub-agents and were paying him commission, in their capacity as the selling agent of the appellants. The Appellate Tribunal has referred to the evidence of Shiv Nand Verma given before the Income-tax Officer and it has also noted the reasons for not acting on that evidence. Therefore, it is not as if that the Appellate Tribunal was not conscious of this evidence, on record which is absolutely valueless so far' as the appellants are concerned.

Regarding the receipts Nos. 948 dated 24-4-1946 and 298 dated February 13, 1947, it is no doubt true that they have not 89 5 been specifically adverted to by the Appellate Tribunal. But it is rather surprising that the appellants should be able to produce only these two receipts when they claim that M/s Gokul Nagar Sugar Mills Company Ltd. has been acting as their selling agent from 1944. Further the persons who are mentioned there as sub-agents have not at all given evidence before the Income-tax authorities. Those receipts lose all significance especially when the evidence of Ram Sahai Dhir and Shiv Nand Verma who claim to have been appointed as sub- agents by the selling agent has been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. Obviously, in view of the other evidence against the appellants, the Appellate Tribunal did not think it worthwhile to specifically refer to these two receipts on record. But the non-reference to these two receipts cannot be. said to have in any manner vitiated the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. As we have stated earlier, we have only referred to these items of evidence on record to show that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal are based on the material on record and that the finding is such which could on that evidence be reasonably reached.