TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (11) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fe, giving gifts to his wife and also setting apart money exclusively for his wife and children and that the fund so accumulated which remained in a cupboard " was found after his death. The Income-tax Officer disbelieved the explanation furnished and brought the amount of Rs. 5,84,000 to tax as income of Amritlal in the year of account 1944-45 from an undisclosed source, and with his decision the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed. At the hearing of the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Anusuya Devi, widow of Amritlal, filed an affidavit in which it was stated, inter alia : " 5. From time to time during our married life, late Sri Amritlal Ojha used to make presents of cash moneys to me on the occasion of birthday of myself and of my sons and daughter by him and also on the occasion of his own birthday and on the anniversary of our marriage. 6. My husband late Sri Amritlal Ojha used to tell me that these presents of cash money that he made was to make provisions for me and my minor sons and daughter and also to meet the expenses of their education and marriage in the event of his death. 8. The total amount of the money so paid by late Sri Amritlal Oj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal erred in law by basing their decision on a part of the evidence ignoring the statement made as regards the withdrawal of Rs. 4,94,000 by 494 pieces of Rs. 1000 notes from the bank ? " In compliance with the order, the Tribunal observed that the extract from the statement incorporated in the petition under section 66(1) was materially different from the statement reproduced in the order of the Income-tax Officer and that the Tribunal was not invited to consider at the hearing of the appeal the truth or otherwise of the alleged copy of the declaration incorporated in the petition under section 66(1) and that at the hearing of the appeal the original declaration had not been produced. The learned judges of the High Court who heard the reference were apparently of the view that the question referred did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal, but they felt bound by the view expressed in Chainrup Sampatram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that it is not open to the court hearing a reference under section 66(2) to hold, contrary to the decision recorded at the time when the Tribunal was directed to state the case on a question, that the question did not arise out of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a bank at Calcutta in realization of a cheque. But that evidence was not before the Tribunal, and the order of the Tribunal was not open to the objection that it had decided the appeal before it on a partial review of the evidence. Even in the application made to the Tribunal under section 66(1) in the large number of questions which it was claimed arose out of the order of the Tribunal, it was not suggested that the finding of the Tribunal was vitiated because some relevant evidence was ignored. If the Tribunal refuses to state a case under sub-section (1) of section 66 on the ground that no question of law arises, and the High Court is not satisfied with the correctness of that decision, the High Court may, in exercise of the power under section 66(2), require the Tribunal to state a case, and refer it. When the Tribunal is not invited to state a case on a question of law alleged to arise out of its order, the High Court cannot direct the Tribunal to state it on that question : see Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. The reason of the rule is clear : the High Court cannot hold that the decision of the Tribunal refusing to state a case on a particula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal to state the case on the question which was directed to be referred and dealt with by the High Court. We are also unable to agree with the observation of the High Court that the explanation which the Assistant Commissioner says was made by Anusuya Devi was not made by her or by her attorney. No such plea was apparently raised before the Tribunal. There is also no ground for believing that Anusuya Devi was not given an opportunity to " clear up the discrepancies " between the statements made by her or on her behalf from time to time in connection with the encashment of the high denomination notes. That plea was not raised before the Tribunal, and the validity of the conclusion of the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed before the High Court on the ground that departmental authorities had violated the basic rules of natural justice without raising that question before the Tribunal. Counsel for Anusuya Devi requested that in any event the question which has been referred by the Tribunal in pursuance of the order of the High Court may be reframed and a supplementary statement may be ordered to be submitted by the Tribunal. But power to reframe a question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the proceeding for assessment for the year 1945-46 was considered by the Income-tax Officer and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer observed that by the explanation submitted on behalf of Anusuya Devi before him, contrary to what was stated at the time of encashment of the high denomination notes, it was attempted "as an afterthought, to spread over the amount over a number of years." The contention that the amount of Rs. 5,84,000, was not taxable in the year of assessment 1945-46, was rejected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that on the statement made by Anusuya Devi that she had received the amount from her husband in the year of account, 1944-45, and that it was unfortunate that there was no complete record, of the " earnings and withdrawals " of Amritlal from the various businesses in which he was interested, and that in the absence of such a record all that was to be done was to examine whether the explanation was credible. He observed that " the accounting year was very favourable for all types of business, and in all probability the sum represented some income earned by the deceased in some ventures which were not known to the ....