LexVIJAY KUMAR TALWAR versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 499 VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI (Civil Appeal Nos.3265-3266 of 2003) DECEMBER 6, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961: A B s. 68 - Presumption under - Non-satisfactory explanation c by assessee about the nature and source of the cash receipts credited in his account books - Held: Presumption u/s. 68 is to be drawn against him - The sum found credited in the books of assessee for the previous year, to be charged to tax as income of assessee of that previous year since no satisfactory D explanation was offered by him - The conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee has failed to prove the source of the cash credits cannot be said to be perverse, giving rise to a substantial question of law. s. 260A - Substantial question of law - Formulation of - E Held: Appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved - If the High Court comes to the conclusion that there is a substantial question of law in the case, it is mandatory on its part to formulate such question. F One partnership firm was dissolved on 1.4.1982. The assessee took over the business of the dissolved (erstwhile) firm on 21.10.1982. On 27.5.1983, a search took place in the premises of the assessee and certain records G were seized. The seized accounts of the assessee revealed cash receipts of Rs.3.49 lacs in the names of 15 persons purportedly received during the period April 1982 to October 1982. The assessee gave explanation that the 499 H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A cash receipts of Rs.3.49 lacs were realizations from the past debtors of the erstwhile firm. The assessee, however, could not produce proof to substantiate the said stand. The assessee was given several opportunities to file confirmations of 15 persons in whose names cash B credit entries appeared in the register. The assessee ultimately filed 7 confirmations with the addresses of 6 other parties, but the enquiry letters sent by the Assessing Officer to them remained unserved, unanswered or denied. By assessment order, the c Assessing Officer added Rs.3.49 lacs as assessee's income under the head "unexplained cash receipts". The assessee unsuccessfully appealed before the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law was involved 0 in the case. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the instant appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is manifest from a bare reading of the E Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and wtlere the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it F is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event t'1e findings are based on no G evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been H VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR v. COMMISSIONER OF 501 INCOME TAX, DELHI applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the A evidence has been misread. [Paras 18, 21] [509-C-E; 511- B-C] Sir Chunilal v. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179; Hero Vinoth B (Minor) v. Seshamma/ 2006) 5 SCC 545; Madan Lal v. Mst. Gopi & Anr. (1980) 4 SCC 255; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi (2009) 3 SCC 287; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Vijay Oasharath Patel (2007) 4 SCC 118; Metroark Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, C Calcutta (2004) 12 SCC 505; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715 - relied on. 1.2. In the instant case, the High Court has correctly D concluded that no substantial question of law has arisen from the order of the T;ibunal. Alf the authorities below, in particular, the Tribunal, have observed in unison that the assessee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.