LexHOMI JEHANGIR GHEESTA versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Seplember a~ 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS HOMI JEHANGIR GHEESTA v. [1961] THE CO~fMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY (S. K. DAs, M. HmAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) lllcome tax-Assessment-Income from undisclosed source- Refusal by Appellate Tribunal lo state a case--Sumrnary refusol by High Court lo direct a reference-Q11estion of law, when can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (XI of r922), s. 66(2). The appellant encashed high denomination currency notes d1 the value of Rs. 87,500 and was called upon by the Income- tax Officer to submit a return for the relevant year. The appel- lant made three statements, discrepant in material particulars, at different stages as to h'tl"w he received the amount. The Income-tax Officer held that the true nature of the receipt had not been disclosed, treated it as income from an undisclosed source and assessed him accordingly. The Assistant Commis- sioner of Income-tax upheld that order on appeal. On a further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal reviewed the facts, considered the discrepancies in the appellant's case and affirmed the order of assessment. An application for a reference to the High Court having been made under s. 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Tribunal held that no question of law arose !ram its order and dismissed the same. The High Court thereafter summarily dismissed the application made by the appellant under s. 66(2) of the Act. Against that order of summary dismissal special leave to appeal was obtained from this court and the sole ques- tion for determination in the appeal was whether the order of the Tribunal on the face of it disclosed any question of law and if the High Court was right in summarily dismissing the applica- tion under s. 66(2) of the Act. Held, that no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal and the appeal must fail. In order to decide whether the principles laid dow~ by this court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. (1954) 26 I.T.R. 736 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of brcome-tax, Madras, (1959) 37 l.T.R. 151, applied to a particular case, it was necessary to read the order of the Tribunal as a whole for determining whether or not it had pro- perly considered the material facts and the evidence, for and against, in coming to its final conclusion and whether any irrelevant consideration or matter of prejudice had vitiated such conclusion. Those decisions do not require that the order of· the Tribunal must be examined sentence by sentence so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there and rest a question of Jaw thereon. , 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 771 Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, 1y60 (1954) 26 I.T.R. 736 and. Omar Saley Mohamed Sait v. Commis- sioner of Income'tax, Madras, (1959) 37 l.T.R. lSI, explained. · I/omi jellangfr Although a mere rejection of an explanation given by the Ghcesta assessee does not invariably establish the nature of a receipt, v. where the circumstances of the rejection are such as to properly Tle Commissioner .raise the inference that the receipt is an inco1ne 1 the assessing of Income-tax, authorities are entitled to draw that inference. Such an Bombay inference is one of fact and not of law. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 4, 1956, of the former Bombay High Court in LT.A. No. 49 of 1956. · R. J. Kol,ah, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rame8hwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the res- pondent. 1960. September 22. The Judgµient of the Court was delivered by S. K. DAs J.-For the assessment year 1946-47 the appellant Homi Jehangir Gheesta. was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 87,500 under s. 23(3) of the Indian Income-t~x Act, 1922. The circumstances in which .he was so assessed were the following. The appellant's ca.se was that M. H. Sanjana, mater- nal grand father of the appellant,· died on or about May 10, 1920, There was litigation between his widow Cursetba.i and Bai Jerbanoo, Sanjana's da.µghter by his first· wife, a.bout the validity of a. will left by Sa.nja.na. Bai Jerba.noo was the appellant's mother. The litigation. was compromised and the appellant's mother got one.third share in the .estate left by Sanjana. the tota
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.