| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3576 = 1963 SLD 3576 = 1963 PTD 351 |
Assam High Court
Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1959, decided on 30th November 1959.
Presented By: H. Deka, C. J. and Mehrotra, J
S. K. Ghose and G. K. Talukdar for the Assessee. B. N. Choudhuri for the Commissioner.
Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1959, decided on 30th November 1959.
Presented By: H. Deka, C. J. and Mehrotra, J
S. K. Ghose and G. K. Talukdar for the Assessee. B. N. Choudhuri for the Commissioner.
NABADWIP CHANDRA ROY
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM
Law:
Section:
Exemptions-Casual and non-recurring receipt-Person carrying on textile business nominated as director of a textile society -Bonus paid for services as director-Whether assessable as income arising from vocation or exempt cps casual and non-recurring receipt- Undisclosed income-Amount standing in third party's name in assessee's account-Assessment as undisclosed income -Burden of proof-Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 4 (3)(vii). The assessees carried on textile business and in that capacity he was chairman of a sub-divisional co-operative society. He was nominated to the directorate of one A. P. Textile Co operative Society as he was the chairman of the Sub-divisional Society. In the year of account he was paid a certain sum of money as bonus by the A. P. Textile Co-operative Society in consideration of the services rendered by him as its director, though as a director he was not entitled to claim any such remuneration; Held, that the sum of money received by the assessee as a bonus was income arising from the textile business, a vocation carried on by him and not a casual and non-recurring receipt not arising from a business or vocation. If it is shown from the account books that a certain money has been received by the assessee during the assessment year, the burden lies on him to prove the source and the nature of the particular receipt and that the receipt is not in the nature of an income, but in cases where the amount is shown to have been deposited by a third party, prima facie, it cannot be regarded as a receipt by the assessee-much less a taxable income, and in that event it is for the Department, if they want to tax it as an income of the assessee, to show by some material that the amount stand ing in the name of the third party does not belong to that third party but belongs to the assessee. By merely holding that the assessee has not established the source of receipt of that amount by the third party, the Department cannot claim that it has placed material which leads conclusively to the result that it was an income of the assessee from some undisclosed source. Chenna Basappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) 34…