The officer accepted my books but still says I could not have held that much cash in high denomination notes, and has added part of it as undisclosed income. Can he do that?
No. The Supreme Court held the addition was based on no evidence and set it aside. The cash book entries had been accepted as correct and the three affidavits explaining the receipt of notes were never challenged by cross-examination, so the Revenue could not question either. On that material it was within the range of possibility that the firm held the 61 notes, and an imaginary calculation could not displace the explanation. The Tribunal, having accepted the explanation for 31 notes, had no reason to reject it for the other 30; that was a rule of thumb and pure surmise. The High Court was wrong to treat the finding as an unassailable finding of fact.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; S.R. Das CJ, N.H. Bhagwati and T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. Judgment by Bhagwati J, with a separate concurring judgment by Venkatarama Ayyar J) on 1956-05-10, reported as (1956) 30 ITR 181; AIR 1956 SC 554; (1956) SCR 626; 1956 SCJ 678. It bears on section 143(3), section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters.
This is one of the most cited decisions in Indian tax litigation, and it does two jobs. First, it fixes when a court may interfere with a finding of fact: conclusions drawn from proved or admitted facts may themselves be findings of fact, but whether a particular inference can legitimately be drawn is a question of law, and a court must intervene where the fact-finding authority acted without any evidence, or on a view of the facts that could not reasonably be entertained, or where no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the law could have reached that conclusion. Second, it sets the evidentiary rules for unexplained cash. Books accepted as genuine bind the Revenue as much as the assessee. Affidavits that the officer does not test by cross-examination cannot afterwards be disputed. And a part-acceptance of an explanation, with an arbitrary figure taken as unexplained, cannot stand. Venkatarama Ayyar J's line that a decision must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony is quoted far beyond tax.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The appellants were a registered firm dealing in mill stores at Ahmedabad with a branch in Bombay, assessed under sections 23(3) and 26A of the 1922 Act. High denomination bank notes ceased to be legal tender at the end of 12 January 1946 under the Demonetisation Ordinance of that date, and on 18 January 1946 the firm encashed sixty-one notes of Rs 1,000 each, of face value Rs 61,000, through the Eastern Bank. In the assessment for 1947-48 the Income-tax Officer required the firm to prove from whom and when the notes had been received. He examined the cash book entries and cash balances from 20 December 1945 to 18 January 1946, accepted them as correct, but made no further scrutiny, and concluded that the explanation would require assuming eighteen such notes in the balance on 1 January 1946 and that every cash receipt thereafter was in thousand rupee notes, which he thought impossible. He added Rs 61,000 as income from undisclosed sources. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the firm filed three affidavits from the persons who had made the payments, deposing to Rs 20,000 on 28 December 1945, Rs 15,000 on 6 January 1946 and Rs 8,000 out of Rs 8,500 on 8 January 1946, all in thousand rupee notes, Rs 43,500 in all. Neither he nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present, called the deponents for cross-examination, and the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted the books, could not say the firm had no such notes, but thought sixty-one impossible; it accepted the explanation for thirty-one notes and dismissed the rest. On a direction under section 66(2) two questions were referred; the Bombay High Court answered the first against the firm and declined to answer the second for want of jurisdiction.
The appeal was allowed with costs here and in the High Court, and the first referred question answered in the negative: there were no materials to justify the assessment of Rs 30,000 out of the Rs 61,000. The High Court erred in refusing to interfere with a finding based on no evidence and in treating it as a simple finding of fact. Since the cash book entries had been accepted and the deponents not called for cross-examination, it was not open to the Revenue to challenge either the entries or the affidavits, and the position on 12 January 1946 had to be appreciated on that material at face value. Taking eighteen notes on 2 January 1946, a further forty-nine came into the firm's possession up to 12 January, making sixty-seven, of which sixty-one were encashed. A calculation of the kind made by the officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, without further scrutiny, could not dislodge that. The Tribunal's acceptance of thirty-one notes and exclusion of thirty was a rule of thumb, pure surmise with no basis in the evidence, and it never indicated on what material it held Rs 30,000 to be secret profits, so its order was bad. The High Court's attempt to reconstruct the Tribunal's reasoning by discarding one affidavit was far-fetched and contrary to the terms of the Tribunal's own order. With the first answer in the negative, the second question became academic. Venkatarama Ayyar J agreed, resting his decision on the absence of any evidence for the finding.
The Court set out the limits of a finding of fact by reference to the House of Lords. In Cameron v Prendergast, inferences from facts stated by the Commissioners are matters of law open to question on appeal. In Bomford v Osborne, where further conclusions are deduced from proved or admitted facts, the point of law is whether those facts provide evidence to support the conclusion. In Edwards v Bairstow, Viscount Simonds said a pure finding of fact may be set aside where the Commissioners acted without any evidence or on a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained, and Lord Radcliffe added that the court must intervene where the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have reached the determination. The Court then applied that to the record. The officer had accepted the cash book entries and gone no further; the affidavits had been filed and left untested, though the officer was present at the appellate hearing and could have asked for the deponents. Both therefore had to be taken at face value, and once they were, the arithmetic showed the holding of the notes to be possible. Neither the officer nor the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had done anything more than construct a calculation of their own about how receipts must have been composed. The Tribunal, having conceded that the firm may well have held a substantial number of such notes and having accepted the books, could not then fix on a figure without saying what supported it. Venkatarama Ayyar J added that whether accounts are genuine is a pure question of fact and a finding that they are is binding on the Revenue as much as on the subject, so the Department's argument that the assessee had time to rewrite the books after the Ordinance could not be entertained; the length of time such notes had been held might be highly suspicious, but a decision must rest on legal testimony.
the decision of the Tribunal must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held the addition was based on no evidence and set it aside. The cash book entries had been accepted as correct and the three affidavits explaining the receipt of notes were never challenged by cross-examination, so the Revenue could not question either. On that material it was within the range of possibility that the firm held the 61 notes, and an imaginary calculation could not displace the explanation. The Tribunal, having accepted the explanation for 31 notes, had no reason to reject it for the other 30; that was a rule of thumb and pure surmise. The High Court was wrong to treat the finding as an unassailable finding of fact. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; S.R. Das CJ, N.H. Bhagwati and T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. Judgment by Bhagwati J, with a separate concurring judgment by Venkatarama Ayyar J) and bears on section 143(3), section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (1956) 30 ITR 181; AIR 1956 SC 554; (1956) SCR 626; 1956 SCJ 678. This is one of the most cited decisions in Indian tax litigation, and it does two jobs. First, it fixes when a court may interfere with a finding of fact: conclusions drawn from proved or admitted facts may themselves be findings of fact, but whether a particular inference can legitimately be drawn is a question of law, and a court must intervene where the fact-finding authority acted without any evidence, or on a view of the facts that could not reasonably be entertained, or where no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the law could have reached that conclusion. Second, it sets the evidentiary rules for unexplained cash. Books accepted as genuine bind the Revenue as much as the assessee. Affidavits that the officer does not test by cross-examination cannot afterwards be disputed. And a part-acceptance of an explanation, with an arbitrary figure taken as unexplained, cannot stand. Venkatarama Ayyar J's line that a decision must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony is quoted far beyond tax. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File affidavits from the persons who actually made the payments, dealing with the specific entries, and press the officer either to cross-examine the deponents or to accept the statements; an untested affidavit cannot later be brushed aside.
The appellants were a registered firm dealing in mill stores at Ahmedabad with a branch in Bombay, assessed under sections 23(3) and 26A of the 1922 Act. High denomination bank notes ceased to be legal tender at the end of 12 January 1946 under the Demonetisation Ordinance of that date, and on 18 January 1946 the firm encashed sixty-one notes of Rs 1,000 each, of face value Rs 61,000, through the Eastern Bank. In the assessment for 1947-48 the Income-tax Officer required the firm to prove from whom and when the notes had been received. He examined the cash book entries and cash balances from 20 December 1945 to 18 January 1946, accepted them as correct, but made no further scrutiny, and concluded that the explanation would require assuming eighteen such notes in the balance on 1 January 1946 and that every cash receipt thereafter was in thousand rupee notes, which he thought impossible. He added Rs 61,000 as income from undisclosed sources. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the firm filed three affidavits from the persons who had made the payments, deposing to Rs 20,000 on 28 December 1945, Rs 15,000 on 6 January 1946 and Rs 8,000 out of Rs 8,500 on 8 January 1946, all in thousand rupee notes, Rs 43,500 in all. Neither he nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present, called the deponents for cross-examination, and the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted the books, could not say the firm had no such notes, but thought sixty-one impossible; it accepted the explanation for thirty-one notes and dismissed the rest. On a direction under section 66(2) two questions were referred; the Bombay High Court answered the first against the firm and declined to answer the second for want of jurisdiction. The matter was decided on 1956-05-10 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; S.R. Das CJ, N.H. Bhagwati and T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. Judgment by Bhagwati J, with a separate concurring judgment by Venkatarama Ayyar J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was allowed with costs here and in the High Court, and the first referred question answered in the negative: there were no materials to justify the assessment of Rs 30,000 out of the Rs 61,000. The High Court erred in refusing to interfere with a finding based on no evidence and in treating it as a simple finding of fact. Since the cash book entries had been accepted and the deponents not called for cross-examination, it was not open to the Revenue to challenge either the entries or the affidavits, and the position on 12 January 1946 had to be appreciated on that material at face value. Taking eighteen notes on 2 January 1946, a further forty-nine came into the firm's possession up to 12 January, making sixty-seven, of which sixty-one were encashed. A calculation of the kind made by the officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, without further scrutiny, could not dislodge that. The Tribunal's acceptance of thirty-one notes and exclusion of thirty was a rule of thumb, pure surmise with no basis in the evidence, and it never indicated on what material it held Rs 30,000 to be secret profits, so its order was bad. The High Court's attempt to reconstruct the Tribunal's reasoning by discarding one affidavit was far-fetched and contrary to the terms of the Tribunal's own order. With the first answer in the negative, the second question became academic. Venkatarama Ayyar J agreed, resting his decision on the absence of any evidence for the finding.
The Court set out the limits of a finding of fact by reference to the House of Lords. In Cameron v Prendergast, inferences from facts stated by the Commissioners are matters of law open to question on appeal. In Bomford v Osborne, where further conclusions are deduced from proved or admitted facts, the point of law is whether those facts provide evidence to support the conclusion. In Edwards v Bairstow, Viscount Simonds said a pure finding of fact may be set aside where the Commissioners acted without any evidence or on a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained, and Lord Radcliffe added that the court must intervene where the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have reached the determination. The Court then applied that to the record. The officer had accepted the cash book entries and gone no further; the affidavits had been filed and left untested, though the officer was present at the appellate hearing and could have asked for the deponents. Both therefore had to be taken at face value, and once they were, the arithmetic showed the holding of the notes to be possible. Neither the officer nor the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had done anything more than construct a calculation of their own about how receipts must have been composed. The Tribunal, having conceded that the firm may well have held a substantial number of such notes and having accepted the books, could not then fix on a figure without saying what supported it. Venkatarama Ayyar J added that whether accounts are genuine is a pure question of fact and a finding that they are is binding on the Revenue as much as on the subject, so the Department's argument that the assessee had time to rewrite the books after the Ordinance could not be entertained; the length of time such notes had been held might be highly suspicious, but a decision must rest on legal testimony. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the decision of the Tribunal must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony"
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1956-05-10 and is reported as (1956) 30 ITR 181; AIR 1956 SC 554; (1956) SCR 626; 1956 SCJ 678. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 143(3), section 68, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed with costs here and in the High Court, and the first referred question answered in the negative: there were no materials to justify the assessment of Rs 30,000 out of the Rs 61,000. The High Court erred in refusing to interfere with a finding based on no evidence and in treating it as a simple finding of fact. Since the cash book entries had been accepted and the deponents not called for cross-examination, it was not open to the Revenue to challenge either the entries or the affidavits, and the position on 12 January 1946 had to be appreciated on that material at face value. Taking eighteen notes on 2 January 1946, a further forty-nine came into the firm's possession up to 12 January, making sixty-seven, of which sixty-one were encashed. A calculation of the kind made by the officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, without further scrutiny, could not dislodge that. The Tribunal's acceptance of thirty-one notes and exclusion of thirty was a rule of thumb, pure surmise with no basis in the evidence, and it never indicated on what material it held Rs 30,000 to be secret profits, so its order was bad. The High Court's attempt to reconstruct the Tribunal's reasoning by discarding one affidavit was far-fetched and contrary to the terms of the Tribunal's own order. With the first answer in the negative, the second question became academic. Venkatarama Ayyar J agreed, resting his decision on the absence of any evidence for the finding. It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters, on section 143(3), section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India; S.R. Das CJ, N.H. Bhagwati and T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. Judgment by Bhagwati J, with a separate concurring judgment by Venkatarama Ayyar J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Get the books accepted or rejected, and pin the finding down. If they are accepted as genuine, that acceptance binds the Department and any addition must be reconciled with them. Attack an arbitrary part-disallowance directly: ask what material supports the particular figure, since accepting an explanation in part and rejecting it for the balance without reasons is surmise. Meet a possibility argument with an arithmetic reconstruction of the cash balances from the books, showing that the holding was within the range of possibility rather than proving it was certain. Keep suspicion and evidence apart in the reply, and say so in terms; the case is authority that suspicion, however strong, is not legal testimony.
Still good law. The source page records the decision as cited in more than three hundred and thirty later cases, which makes it one of the most frequently applied decisions in Indian tax litigation, both on the limits of a finding of fact and on the evidentiary treatment of unexplained cash. It arose under the 1922 Act, but the propositions are about evidence and about the scope of interference with findings, not about any provision that the 1961 Act changed. Its later history was not separately traced in this session. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The batch line gave the sections as 68, 143(3) and 144. The judgment was decided under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: the assessment was under section 23(3), read with section 26A for the registered firm, and the reference came up under sections 66(1) and 66(2). The 1961 Act equivalent of section 23(3) is section 143(3). There was no counterpart of section 68 in the 1922 Act, so the case is authority on the evidence required for an addition of unexplained money rather than on the terms of that section, and it says nothing about the burden as that section now casts it. The second referred question, on whether an addition can be made for excess profits tax and business profits tax purposes without a finding that the amount came from undisclosed business profits, was left undecided as academic, and the correctness of the High Court's view that it had no jurisdiction to direct a reference of a question the assessee had not itself raised was also left open. The harvested page carries a reporter's headnote above the judgment, which has been disregarded; the headnote gives some of the dates as December 1946 and January 1946 where the judgment gives December 1945, and gives one payment as made on 6 January where the judgment gives 8 January. The judgment's own figures are followed here. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed with costs here and in the High Court, and the first referred question answered in the negative: there were no materials to justify the assessment of Rs 30,000 out of the Rs 61,000. The High Court erred in refusing to interfere with a finding based on no evidence and in treating it as a simple finding of fact. Since the cash book entries had been accepted and the deponents not called for cross-examination, it was not open to the Revenue to challenge either the entries or the affidavits, and the position on 12 January 1946 had to be appreciated on that material at face value. Taking eighteen notes on 2 January 1946, a further forty-nine came into the firm's possession up to 12 January, making sixty-seven, of which sixty-one were encashed. A calculation of the kind made by the officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, without further scrutiny, could not dislodge that. The Tribunal's acceptance of thirty-one notes and exclusion of thirty was a rule of thumb, pure surmise with no basis in the evidence, and it never indicated on what material it held Rs 30,000 to be secret profits, so its order was bad. The High Court's attempt to reconstruct the Tribunal's reasoning by discarding one affidavit was far-fetched and contrary to the terms of the Tribunal's own order. With the first answer in the negative, the second question became academic. Venkatarama Ayyar J agreed, resting his decision on the absence of any evidence for the finding.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
You have a document that says so. Does that settle it?
No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?