Constructive remittance presumption is rebuttable; a tribunal's finding that remittance represented profits is a factual matter, not a question of law.

The note explains that the presumption that remittances received in British India from business carried on outside represent profits is a rebuttable factual presumption; its weight depends on case circumstances. Where an appellate fact-finding concludes that a remittance included the available profits after examining the business scale and requirements, that conclusion is a factual determination and does not ordinarily raise a question of law requiring a case to be stated under the procedure for referring questions of law. The application for a statement of case was therefore rejected on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum of Rs. 32,000 received in British India constituted a constructive remittance from Jubbal State and whether that sum included the entire profits of the account year 1942-43.

Analysis: The Court reviewed authority establishing that where remittances are received in British India from business carried on outside British India, there is a factual presumption that such remittances represent profits unless rebutted by the assessee. That presumption is not one of law but of fact and its weight depends on the circumstances of each case. The Appellate Tribunal's finding that the Rs. 32,000 included the available profits was treated as a conclusion of fact reached after examining the scale and requirements of the assessee's business. The Court held that such factual conclusions do not ordinarily give rise to questions of law requiring a statement of case under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Conclusion: The presumption that remittances represent profits is available but is a rebuttable factual presumption; on the facts the Appellate Tribunal's conclusion that the Rs. 32,000 included the profits is a question of fact and not a fit question of law for statement. The application for a case to be stated is therefore dismissed.

---