Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(o) The learned Senior Standing counsel referred to several decisions as to how affidavits should be filed, the meaning of affidavits etc.

(p) In (1956) 30 ITR 181 [Mehta Parikh and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax], the question was whether the high denomination notes in the possession of the assessee could be assessed as undisclosed profits when the appellants produced affidavits from some persons that the assessee was paid in high denomination notes during the relevant period. The Supreme Court held that when the cash book of the appellants were accepted, and the entries therein were not challenged, and neither further accounts nor vouchers were called for, and the persons who gave the affidavits were not cross-examined, it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the cash book entries or the statements made in the affidavits. In fact, in that decision, the Supreme Court held that the court would be entitled to intervene 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 found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to the determination in question. This was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel to support his case that the persons who gave the affidavits should be cross-examined. In that case, the finding was that it is impossible for the appellant to have had 61 high denomination notes in cash balance and by applying a thumb rule the authorities accepted 31 out of 61 notes as within the bounds of possibility. It is in those circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the conclusion was based on pure surmise and that the deponent of the affidavits ought to have been examined. In this case, the fact finding authority has arrived at the only reasonable conclusion.

(4) The judgment in (1956) 30 I.T.R 181 [Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. C.I.T.] also does not help the assessee, since though in that case also, the Supreme Court held that the correctness of the cash book entries or the statements made in the affidavit cannot be challenged and when the persons who gave the affidavits were not cross-examined, the further accounts or vouchers were called for. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on the basis of the recitals in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, though he held that the evidentiary value of the affidavits was very weak, but in that case, when explanation was given as to why high denomination notes were given to the assessee and the assessee was in possession of the same, rejecting some of those notes and accepting some of them as within the bounds of possibility was held to be pure surmise and had no basis in the evidence. This judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case as seen earlier.