Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 85 1991 SLD 85 1991 PTD 288
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.24 of 1958, decision dated: 22-09-1960
S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND, J.C. SHAH, JJ
R.J. Kolah, S.N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra for Appellant. K.N. Rajagopal Sastri (D. Gupta with him) for
Respondent

HOMI JEHANGIR GHEESTA

VS

COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 13,66

(a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)-----S. 13---Character of Income---Determination---Explanation offered by assessee with regard to character of income not accepted by Assessing Officer--¬Existence of material---Inference drawn by Assessing Officer when inference of fact and not of law. It is not in all cases that by mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee, the character of a particular receipt as income can be said to have been established; but where the circumstances of the rejection are such that the only proper inference is that the receipt must be treated as income in the hands of the assessee, there is no reason why the assessing authorities should not draw such an inference. Such an inference is an inference of fact and not of law. (b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)--- ----S. 66---Order of Appellate Tribunal when gives rise to question of law¬-Question of law---Mode of determination---Test to be applied---Determination. In determining whether an order of the Appellate Tribunal would give rise to a question of law the Court must read the order of Tribunal as a whole to determine whether every material fact, for and against the assessee, has been considered fairly and with due care; whether the evidence pro and con has been considered in reaching the final conclusion; and whether the conclusion reached by the Tribunal has been coloured by irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice. The order of the Tribunal must not be examined sentence by sentence, through a microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law. In considering probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions. ORDER 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 section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The circumstances in which he was so assessed were the following:-- "The appellant's case was that M.H. Sanjana, maternal-grandfather of the appellant, died on or about 10th May, 1920. There was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492