TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1953 (3) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclosed sources and the high denomination notes did not represent the business receipts of the assessee. The Tribunal has concurred in this decision to the extent of ₹ 30,000, and the question that arises before us is whether there was any meterial which justified the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that it did. Now, prima facie, one would have thought the decision of the Tribunal is a decision on a question of fact, and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. There is only a limited class of cases in which this Court can interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and those are cases where this Court is satisfied that there was no evidence on which the Tribunal could have based its decision. Evidence may be direct evidence or it may be circumstantial evidence. It would be open to the Tribunal to infer a fact from circumstances established before it and it would not be open to the Court to disagree with the finding of fact of the Tribunal merely because there was no direct evidence to justify that finding, and the Court would also not interfere with the inference drawn by the Tribunal from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee company maintained were, but what part of the balances was made up of high denomination notes. As far as the books of account of the assessee company are concerned, there is no internal evidence at all to show how these balances were made up. Some business men make entries in their cash book where they show notes of high denomination which come into the business. This particular assessee company does not adopt that practice. That is not against him, but it so happens that its books do not disclose what the high denomination notes were that came by way of cash receipts into the business. There-! fore as far as the books of account of the assessee are concerned, they do not disclose any evidence one way or the other as to whether there were high denomination notes at all in the business or what the principle of these high denomination notes were. The assessee attempted to prove by positive evidence what high denomination notes were sent to the firm during the material period, and this evidence it led by means of affidavits of certain persons. It filed the affidavit of one Nivetia who stated that on the 6th January, 1946, he had sent ₹ 16,000 through his munim in 15 curr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. When we turn to the various authorities on which Mr. Kolah has strongly relied, and we will briefly look at them, they do not really lay down any principle of law which has not always been accepted by all Courts dealing with income-tax references, but they really apply well known and well accepted principles to the peculiar facts or the special facts that came up before them for their consideration. The first case relied on is the case of the Patna High Court reported in Nilkantha Narayan Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1951] 20 ITR 8 . In that case the Income-tax authorities had assessed the assessee to income-tax on a sum of ₹ 84,000 representing the value of encashed high denomination notes on the ground that it represented income from undisclosed sources, and the Patna High Court came to the conclusion that there was no material to justify that assessment, and at page 23 Mr. Justice Ramaswami deals specifically with the three reasons that were given by the Appellate Tribunal in support of the inference that the sum of ₹ 84,000 was taxable. The learned Judge deals with each of these three reasons and comes to the conclusion that none of them is sustainable, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at page 469 points out various facts which undoubtedly give rise to a suspicion that the two minor sons were really nothing but nominees of the assessee, and the learned Chief Justice rightly posses the question: "The question really is whether those facts not only give rise to a suspicion, but justify the inference of fact drawn by the Income-tax Officer that the minors were mere nominees of the assessee". Therefore what the Court has got to keep before its mind is whether on the facts relied upon by the Tribunal or the circumstances relied upon by the Tribunal, it is possible to say that those facts or those circumstances merely give rise to a suspicion or whether it is possible to say that those facts and circumstances justify the inference drawn by the Tribunal. Whether the position is one or the other would always depend on the facts of each case, and it is difficult to understand how one authority can be of any help in deciding another case on entirely different facts. The final authority relied on by Mr. Kolah is the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Sahai v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax [1950] 18 ITR 988. There the Allahabad High Court laid down....