MESSRS. LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICAL RAM versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

MESSRS. LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICAL RAM v.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA

(S. R. DAs, C.J., N. H. BHAGWATI, and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)

Income-ta.<t-Assessment based on conjectures-Fact finding authority acting without evidenc~-Power of court to interfere-High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, z946 (Ordinance III of z946).

The appellant Hindu undivided family carryii:ig on business in grain kept its books of account according to the mercantile system and maintained in its cash books two accounts : one showing the cash balances from day to day and the other known as" Almirah account" wherein were kept large balances which were not required for the day-to-day working of the business. On January 12, 1946, on which date the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, was promulgated, the cash balances of the appellant were Rs. 29,284 in its Rokar and Rs. 2,81,397 in the Almirah account. For the assessment year 1946-47 the appellant filed its Income-tax Return showing loss of Rs. 46,415 in the business. The Income-tax Officer, in the course of the assessment, noticed that the appellant encashed high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 2,91,000 on January 19, 1946, and the explanation given by the appellant was that these notes formed part of its cash balances including cash balance in the Almirah account, but it was rejected by the Income-tax Officer relying on the following circumstances: (I) that the appellant's food grains licence had been cancelled for the accounting year for its failure to keep proper stock accounts, (2) that the appellant was prosecuted under the Defence of India Rules but had been acquitted having been given the benefit of doubt, (3) that the appellant was speculator, and as such could easily have earned amounts far in excess of the value of the high denomination notes encashed, (4) that notwithstanding the fact that the period was very favourable to the food grains dealers the appellant had declared loss for the assessment year 1944·45 up to 1946-47, though it had the benefit of large capital on hand, and (5) that the appellant was one of the premier grain merchants of Sahibganj, place which had gained sufficient notoriety for smuggling foodgrains. The Income-tax Officer came to the con-clusion that the appellant had all these probable sources from which it could have earned the sum of Rs. 2,91,000, and accordingly. he treated the sum as the appellant's secreted profits from business and included it in its total income. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the account books produced by the appellant

I959 May I4.

x959 and examined the cash book and taking into consideration all the circumstances which had been adverted to by the Income-tax Lale/land Bhagat Officer took the view that the appellant might be expected to Ambi&al Ram have possessed as part of its business cash balance of at least v. . Rs. l,50,000 in the shape of high denomination notes on Tlte Commissioner January 12, 1946, when the Ordinance was promulgated, but that 12, 1946, when the Ordinance was promulgated, but that but that that of Ineome-tru the nature of the source from which the appellant derived the remaining 141 high denomination notes of Rs. l,ooo each remained unexplained to its satisfaction. It accordingly reduced the amount considered as the secreted profits from Rs. 2,91,000 to Rs. l,41,000. On reference, the High Court held that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal was one of fact and that it could not be urged that it was based on no evidence. On appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended for the appellant that the finding arrived at by the authorities concerned, though it be one of fact, was vitiated by reason of the authorities indulging in conjectures, suspicions and surmises and basing the same on no material whatever which would go to support the same, and that, in any case, it was preverse one which reasonable body of men could not have arrived at on the material on the record.

Tlte Commissioner January 12, 1946, when the Ordinance was promulgated, but that 12, 1946, when the Ordinance was promulgated, but that but that that

Held, that the Tribunal had been influenced by the suspicions, conjectures and surmises which were freely indulged in by the Income-tax Officer, and had arrived at its conclusion, as it were by rule of thumb, without any proper materials before it and that its finding could not be sustained; that having accepted the appellant's books of account it was not open to the Tribunal to accept the explanation of the appellant in part as to Rs. l,50,000 and reject the same in regard to the sum of Rs. l,41,000.

Messrs. Mehta Parikh 0- Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, [1956] S.C.R. 626 and Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Uttar Pradesh, [1957] 32 I.T.R. 56, relied on.

Where Tribunal has acted without any e\'idence or upon view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained o~ the facts found were such that no per.on acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the court is entitled to interfere.

Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay,

[1954] 26 I.T.R. 736; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, [1955] I S.C.R. 941; Messrs. Mehta Parikh and Co. v. The Commisioner of Income-tax, Bombay, [1956] S.C.R. 626 and Meenakshi Mills, Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, [1956] S.C.R. 691, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 679 and 680 of 1957.

Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the January 5, 1955, of the Patna. High Court, in M.J.C. Nos. 374 & 375 of 1952.

S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS

R. J. Kolah and R. Patnaik, for the appellant.

A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the respondent.

Lalchcmd Bhagat Ambical Ram

1959. May 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

The Commissioner of Income-tax

BHAGWATT .J.-These are two connected appeals with special leave granted by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and arise out of the appellant's assessment to Income-tax for the assessment year 1946-4 7 and Excess Profits Tax for the chargeable accounting period January 9, 1945, to February 2, 1946.

Bhagwati ].

The appellant is Hindu undivided family carrying on extensive business in grain as merchants and com-mission agents. It is one of the premier grain merch-ants and wholesalers of Sahibganj in the District of Santhal Parganas in the State of Bihar. It has bran-ches at Nawgachia in the District of Bhagalpur and at Dhulian in the District of Murshidabad in West Bengal.

The appellant filed its Income-tax Return for the assessment year 1946-4 7 showing loss of Rs. 46,415 in the business. The Income-tax Officer, Patna, how-ever, in the course of the assessment noticed that the appellant had encashed high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 2,91,000 on January 19, 1946. The Income-tax Officer asked for an explanation which the appellant gave stating that these notes formed part of its cash balances including cash balance in the Almirah account. The cash balances of the appellant on January 12, 1946, on which date the High Denomi-nation Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, was promulgated were Rs. 29,284-3-9 in its Rokar and Rs. 2,81,397-10-0 in the Almirah account. TheAlmirah account was an account for moneys withdrawn and kept at home. The appellant sought to prove the fact that the high denomination notes encashed by it for-med part of its cash balances from certain entries in its accounts wherein the fact that moneys were re-ceived in high denomination notes had been noted. Portions of these entries to the effect that moneys had been received in high denomination notes were found

z959 by the Income-tax Officer to be subsequent interpola-Lalchana Bhagat tions made by the appellant with view to advance Ambical Ram its case that the cash balances contained the high v. denomination notes encashed by it. The Income-tax The Commissioner Officer found that the appellant's food grains licence· 0! Incom•-t= at Nawgachia had been cancelled for the accounting year for its failure to keep proper stock accounts and BhagwaJi j. that the appellant was prosecuted under the Defence of India Rules but had been acquitted having been given the benefit of doubt. The Income-tax Officer also had regard to the fact that the appellant was speculator and that as speculator the appellant could easily have earned amounts far in excess of the value of the high denomination notes encashed. He con-sidered that even in the disclosed volume of business in the year under consideration in the Head Office and in the branches, there was possibility of his earning considerable sum as against which it showed net loss of about Rs. 46,000. The Income-tax Officer also noticed that notwithstanding the fact that the period was very favourable to food grains dealers, the appel-lant had declared loss for the assessment year 1944-45 up to 1946-47, though it had the benefit of large capital on hand. The Income-tax Officer further took into consideration the circumstances that Nawgachia and Dhulian were very important business centres and Sahibganj, the principal place of business, had gained sufficient notoriety for smuggling foodgrains and other aommodities to Bengal by country boats. Dhulian which was just on the Bel)gal, Bihar border was also reported to be great receiving centre for such com-modities. Having regard to all these circumstances, the Income-tax Officer rejected the appellant's explan-ation that the high denomination notes formed part of its cash balances and treated the sum of Rs. 2,91,000 as the appellant's secreted profits from business and included it in its total income and assessed the appel-lant for the said assessment year on the income of Rs.1,39,117. Dealing with the Excess Profits Tax assessment, he also held that the said income was deri-ved from the business of the appellant and hence it was liable to excess profits tax also.

S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against both these assessment orders and by his orders dated :February 28, 1951, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the orders of the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the appeals.

I959 Lalchand BhagaJ Ambical Ram v. The Commission,, of Income-ta~ Bhag~ali ].

On further appeals from the said orders of the Appel-late Assistant Commissioner to the Income-tax Appel-late Tribunal, the Tribunal by its order dated April 29, 1952, dismissed both the appeals as regards the Income-tax as well as Excess profits tax. Even though before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the case of the appellant was that the account book which contained the entries in regard to the receipts of moneys in high denomination notes were genuine and correct, this position was abandoned by the appellant before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the appellant stated that the said entries were made in sheer nervousness after coming into force of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946, on January 12, 1946, as the appellant did not know th<1t it had specific proof in its possession of having the high denomination notes as part of its cash balances. The Tribunal held that there was no other reason to suspect the genuineness of the account books in which these interpolations were made. If the entire account books were fabricated to serve its purpose, there would be no need for the appellant to make interpolations between the lines already written in different ink and in such an obvious manner as to catch one's eye on the most cursory perusal. The Tribunal, however, examined the cash book and taking into consideration all the circumstances which had been adverted to by the Income-tax Officer held that the appellant might be expected to have possessed as part of its business cash balance of at least Rs. 1,50,000 in the s~ape of high de~omination notes on January 12, 1946, when the Ordmance above-mentioned was promulgated. copy of the statement of large amounts received by the appellant from single constituent had been filed by the appellant which showed that sums aggregating to .Rs. 5,04,713 bad been I'eceived by the appellant in large amounts

1959 exceeding Rs. 1,000 between February 6, 1945, and L•lclia:,-Bhagat January 11, 1946. As to large payments made ?Y the Ambical Ram appellant, no statement was filed, but the Tribunal v. examined the accounts with view to ascertain the Tho Commissioner payments which could have been made in high deno-0! Income·•= mination notes. The Tribunal came to the conclusion Bhagwali J. that the nature of the source from which the appel-lant derived the remaining 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each remained unexplained to its satisfaction. It accordingly ordered that the addition made by the authorities be reduced from Rs. 2,91,000 to Rs. 1,41,000. The Income-tax Officer was also directed to make the necessary consequential adjust-ment in the Income-tax assessment based upon the result of the connected Excess Profits Tax appeal. In regard to the Excess Profits Tax appeal the Tribunal after taking into account the preceding and succeeding assessments and the nature of the appellant's business and the opportunities that it had to make substantial business profits outside the books held that the add back of Rs. 1,41,000 must be made to the business profits disclosed by the appellant. Consequential relief was accordingly given in the Excess Profits Tax appeal also.

The appellant thereafter applied to the Tribunal for

stating case and raising and referring to the High Court the following questions of law arising from the said order of the Tribunal both as regards the Income-

tax and the excess profits tax assessments:-

(1) "Whether there is any material to justify the conclusion that Rs. 1,41,000 is secreted profit for the purpose of assessment, this amount being part of Rs. 2,91,000 and which was the amount represent-ed by high denomination notes encashed by the Petitioner.

(2) " Whether there is any material for finding that the sum of Rs. 1,41,000 is the secreted value of the high denomination notes was business income liable to excess profits tax."

By its order dated August 15, 1952, the Tribunal

dismissed these applications stating that the finding of the taxing authorities was pure finding of fact based

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

on evidence before them and that no question of law arose out of the said order of the Tribu~al..

Lalclland Bllaglll Ambical Ram Ram v. . . Th~ ~ommiss;oner ~ommiss;oner 0 ncome·" BTtagwlllif.

The appellant thereupon made apphcat10ns to the Ambical Ram Ram High Court under s. 66(2) for directing the Tribunal v. . . to state case and raise and refer the said questions of Th~ ~ommiss;oner ~ommiss;oner 0 law to the High Court for its decision. By its order ncome·" dated January 21, 1953, the High Court directed the BTtagwlllif. Tribunal to state case and raise and refer the follow-ing question of law to the High Court for its decision in both the applications:-

" Whether there is any material to support the

finding of the Appellate Tribunal that sum of Rs. 1,41,000 is secreted profit liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee under the Indi:;m Income-tax Act and under the Excess Profits Tax Act."

The tribunal accordingly stated case and raised and referred the aforesaid question of law to the High Court.

The said Reference was· heard by the High Court and judgment was delivered on January 5, 1955, whereby the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative. The High Court was of the opinion that the onus of proving the source of the said amount was on the appellant which the appel-lant did not discharge and that there was evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion it did. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal WIJ1! therefore pure finding of fact and it could not be urged that it was based on no evidence. The High Court further held that as the appellant itself claimed that the said amount of Rs. 2,91,000 formed part of the cash balance of its business, the said profits were profits of the business and as such liable to excess profits tax.

The appellant then applied to the High Court for certificate under s. 66A (2) of the Income-tax Act for leave to appeal to this Court. These applications were rejected by the High Court on August 25, 1955, observing that it had answered the question of law not on the academic principles of onus but on the material from which it was open to the Income-tax authorities to arrive at the conclusion at which they arrived.

z959 The appellant thereupon on October 22, 1955, applied to this Court for special leave to appeal which La~!~~!,.a;':!"' was gr.anted by this Court on November 28, 1955, in v. both the appeals arising out of the assessment for TAe Commissioner Income-tax as well as the excess profits tax. Both of Income-tax Income-tax the appeals arising out of these orders being Civil Appeals Nos. 679 and 680 of 1957 are now before us.

z959 v. of Income-tax Income-tax Bha:wa/; J.

The main question to determine in these two appeals is whether there was any material to support the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 1,41,000 represented the secreted profits of the appellant's business and as such liable to be taxed in the hands of the appellant under the Indian Income-tax Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act ? Tl).e contention of the Revenue all throughout has been that it is finding of fact reached by the authorities competent in that behalf and this Court should not interfere with such findings of fact. The contention of the appellant on the other hand, has been that even though it may be finding of fact to be reached by the authorities concerned on the materials on the record before them, such finding is vitiated by reason of the authorities indulging in conjectures, suspicions and surmises and basing the same on no material whatever which goes to support the same. It is also contended that the find-ing reached by them is perverse one which reason-able body of men could not have arrived at on the material on the record.

The limits of our jurisdiction to interfere with find-ing of fact reached by the courts or tribunals of facts have been laid down by us in various decisions of this Court. In Dhirajlnl Girdharilnl v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ([1]) we observed that when Court of fact arrives at its decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, where it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its decision, ques-tion of law arises: Whether the finding of the Court of fact is not vitiated by reason of its having (I) [1954] 26 l.T.R. 736.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

relied upon conjectures, surmises and suspicions not

evidence supported and by partly any evidence upon inadmissible material. on record or partly upon We L 11;,,.~ical 1 ,. "" Bh R:~ "' also observed in Dhakeswari Cotton .llfills Ltd. v. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Benyal ([1]) that an The Commissi01Ur assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee 0! Income-tu the information supplied by the departmental rep-Bnagwati ]. resentative and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assessee wanted to produce in support of the case constituted violation of the fundamental rules of justice and called for interference on our part. In Messrs. Metha Parikh and Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay(~) this Court observed that the conclusions based on facts proved or admitted may be conclusions of fact but whether particular in-ference can legitimately be drawn from such conclusions may be question of law. Where, however, the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the Court is en-titled to interfere. In our decision in M eenakshi Mills, Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-f,ax, Madras ([3]) after discussing the various authorities on the subject we laid down that :-

" (3) finding on question of fact is open to attack under S. 66(1) as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse."

'l'he latest pronouncement of this Court in Omar Salay .Mohamed Bait v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(') summarises the position thus:-

"We are aware that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is fact finding Tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after due conside-ration of the evidence before it this Court will not

(r) (1955] 1 S.C.R. 941.

(3) (1956] S.C.R. 691.

(2) [1956] S.C.R. 6i6.

(4) C.A. No. I.5 of 1958 decided OD

March .5• 1959.

Lalchand Bhagat .A.mbical Ram v. T,,e Commissioner of Ineom~-ta~ Bugwali J.

interfere. It is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been con-sidered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which a.rose for determination, what was the evidence pro a.nd contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findings reached on the evidence before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice a.nd if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it a.ct on no evidence a.t all or on impro-per rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjec-tures and surmises a.nd if it does anything of the sort, its findings even though on questions of fa.ct will be liable to be set aside by this Court."

It is in the light of these observations that we have to <let.ermine the question a.rising before us in the present appeals. It is clear on the record that the appellant maintained its books of account according to the mercantile system and there were maintained in its cash books two accounts : one showing the cash balances from day to day and other known as " Almirah account " wherein were kept large balances which were not required for the day-to-day working of the business. Even though the appellant kept large a.mounts in bank deposits and securities monies were required at short notice at different branches of the appellant. There were also collections made from various Beoparies or merchants and monies were also required for doing the grain purchase work on behalf of the- Government. These monies were credited in the Almirah account which showed heavy cash balan-ces from time to time. In the books of account for previous years it was the practice of the appellant to give details of the notes of high denominations giving the distinctive numbers of these notes received or paid

or at least other description e.g., " So many notes " of z959 Rs. 1,000 each. In the assessment year, however, Lalchand Bhagat this practice does not appear to have been followed Ambical Ram but entries continued to be made of monies thus v. received_ from the banks, different branches, Beoparees The Commissioner etc., without any such details being filled therein. of lncome·lair statment of these cash balances viz., the balance in the Bhagwatif. Rokar and the balance in the Almirah from Septem-ber l, 1945, to January 31, 1946, was filed before the Income-tax authorities and this statement showed that apart from the balance in the Rokar the balance in the Almirah rose from Rs. 1,36,397-10-0 on Septem-ber l, 1945, to Rs. 1,97,397-10-0 on September 30, 1945, to Rs. 2,23,397-10-0 on October 13, 1945, to Rs. 2,65,397-10-0 on November 27, 1945, to Rs. 2,91,397-10-0 on December 29, 1945, and remained at Rs. 2,81,397-10-0 on January 10, 1946. The balance in the Rokar :fluctuated considerably but on the relevant date January 10, 1946, it stood at Rs. 26,092-10-9. It was Rs. 24,976-13-3 on January 11, 1946, and Rs. 29,284-3-9 on January 12, 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demoneti-zation) Ordinance, 1946, was promulgated. These entries showed that there was with the appellant on on January 12, 1946, an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,10,681-13-9 and it~ was highly probable that the High Denomination notes of Rs. 2,91,000 were includ-ed in this sum of Rs. 3,10,681-13-9. The books of account of the appellant were not challenged in any other manner except in regard to the interpolations relating to the number of high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each obviously made by the appe,llant ip. the accounts for the assessment year in question in the manner aforesaid and even in regard to these interpo-lations the explanation given by the appellant in regard to the same was accepted by the Tribunal. Even though the Income-tax Officer made capital out of the interpolations and subsequent insertions in the books of account and styled the evidence furnished by them as created or manipulated evidence thus. dis-coi.mting the story of the appellant in regard to the source of these high denomination notes, the Tribunal

z959 was definitely of opinion that there was no other L l n Ambical Ram ha Bh aga. , k · reason oo s m w to h" suspect IC t ese m erpo ions were iound. As the · t genuineness 1 t• of " the account v. matter of fact the Tribunal accepted these books of The Commissioner account as genuine and worked up its theory on the of Income-la• basis of the entries which obtained in these books of account. The Tribunal had before it the statement Bhagwati]. of large amounts received by the appellant from the banks, different branches of the appellant and its Beoparees or merchants which showed that between February 6, 1945, and January 11, 1946, amounts exceeding Rs. 1,000 aggegrating to Rs. 5,04,713 had been received by the appellant. Even though large amounts may have been paid out by the appellant in this manner between the said dates, the entries of the balance in Rokar and the balance in Almirah showed that on January 12, 1946, the balance in Rokar was Rs. 29,234-3-9 and the balance in Almirah was Rs. 2,81,397-10.0 the total cash balance thus aggre-gating to Rs. 3,10,681-13-9. Nobody had any inkling of the promulgation of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946, on January 12, 1946, and if in the normal course of affairs and situated as the appellant was, the appellant kept these large cash balances in High Denomination Notes of Rs. 1,000 each, there was nothing surprising or impro-bable in it. If the appellant had to disburse such large sums of monies at short notices at the different branches of the appellant and also to its Beoparees apart from financing the Government for grain purchase work which it used to carry on, it would be convenient for it to handle these large sums of monies in high deno-mination notes of Rs. 1,000 each and the most natural thing for it to do was to keep these cash balances in as many high denomination notes as possible. The Tribunal in fact took count of this position and after giving due weight to all the circumstances arrived at the conclusion that the appellant might be expected to have possessed as part of its business cash balance at least Rs. 1,50,000 in the shape of high denomin-ation notes on January 12, 1946, when the Ordinance above mentioned was promulgated. This conclusion

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

, of the Tribunal could only be arrived at on the basis I959 that the entries in the books of account in regard to Lalchand Bhagat the balance in Rokar and the balance in Almirah were Ambical Ram correct and represented the true state of affairs, in v. spite of the interpolations and subsequent insertions The Commissioner· which had been made to bolster up the true case. 0! Income-ta:r

If these were the materials on record which would lead to the inference that the appellant might be expected to have possessed as part of its cash balance at least Rs. 1,50,000 in the shape of high denomin-ation notes on January 12, 1946, when the Ordinance was promulgated, was there any material on record which would legitimately lead the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the nature of the source from which the appellant derived the remaining 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each remained unex-plained to its satisfaction. If the entries in the books of account in regard to the balance in Rokar and the balance in Almirah were held to be genuine, logically enough there was no escape. from the conclusion that the appellant had offered reasonable explanation as to the source of the 291 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each which it encashed on January 19, 1946. It was not open to the Tribunal to accept the genuine-ness of these books of account and accept the ex-planation of the appellant in part as to Rs. 1,50,000 and reject the same in regard to the sum of Rs. 1,41,000-0-0. Consistently enough, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the explanation of the appel-lant in regard to the whole of the sum of Rs. 2,91,000 and held that the appellant had satisfactorily explain-ed the encashment of the 291 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each on January 19, 1946.

Bhagwati J.

The Tribunal, however, appears to have been influ-enced by the suspicions, conjectures and surmises which were freely indulged in by the ·Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and arrived at its own conclusion, as it were, by rule of thumb holding without anY, proper materials before it that the appellant .might be expected to have possessed as part of its business, cash balance at least Rs. 1,50,000 in the shape of high denomination notes on January

12, 1946,- mere conjecture or surmise for which there was no basis in the materials on record before it. Th I Offi · ncome-tax cer indented m support o his conclusion the surrounding circumstances, viz., that the appellant was one of the appellant was one of the was one of the of the the premier Arhatdars and grain merchants of Sahibganj with branches, doin~ similar business, at Nawgachia and Dhullian and all these places were very important business centres and Sahibganj, the principal place of business, had gained sufficient notoriety for smuggling foodgrains and other commodities to Bengal by country boats, and Dhulian which was just on the Bihar-Bengal border was reported to be great receiving centre for such com-modities, that the foodgrains licence of the appellant at Nawgachia was also cancelled during the account-ing year for not keeping proper stock accounts and the appellant was prosecuted under the Defence of . India Rules but was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted, that the accounting year and the year preceding it as also the year succeeding it were very favourable for the foodgraindealers but the appellant though he had large capital in hand declared losses all through from 1944-45 assessment year up to 1946-47 assessment year, the loss according to its books in the year under consideration being to the tune of about Rs. 46,000, that t.he appellant was in very favourable circumstances in which there was pos-sibility of its earning considerable amount in the year under consideration, that it also indulged in specula-tion (a loss of about Rs. 40,000 shown in Nawgachia branch (in Kalai account)), in which profit in single transaction or in chain of transactions could exceed the amounts involved in the high denomination notes, that even in the disclosed volume of business in the year under consideration in the Head Office and in branches there was possibility of its earning con-siderable sum as against which showed net loss of about Rs. 45,000 and.that the appellant had all these probable source or sources from which the appellant could have earned the sum of Rs. 2,91,000 which was represented by the high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambi,al Ram v. The Commissioner of Jn,om•·lax Bhagwati f.

The Commissioner the appellant was one of the appellant was one of the was one of the of the the premier Arhatdars and

S.C.R. SUPR€ME COURT R~PORTS

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also empha-1959 sized the said aspect but based his conclusion mainly Lalchand Bhaglll .on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove Ambical Ram that the high denomination notes had their origin in v. capital and not in profit and held that the Income-tax The Commissioner Officer was justified in treating the sum of Rs 2,91,000 of Income-tax Income-tax as secreted profits.

Ambical Ram v. of Income-tax Income-tax Bhafwati ].

This was t ackground against whic t Tri unal came to its own conclusion. Even though it recog-nised that it was not improbable that when very large sums, say in excess of Rs. 10,000 . at time were received, fairly good portion thereof consisted o'fhigh denomination notes and as high denomination notes were valid tender and nobody could have foreseen that they would be demonetised suddenly in January 1946, there was nothing out of the way in persons dealing with tens of thousands of rupees and whose balances ran to lakhs, being in possession of fair proportion of their balances in the shape of high denomination notes. While recognising this probability of the appellant having been in possession of fair propor-tion of its balances in the shape of high denomination notes, the Tribunal unconsciously though it was, fell into an error when it held that the appellant might be expected to have possessed at least Rs. 1,50,000 in the shape of high denomination notes as part of its cash balance, thus treating the remaining Rs. 1,41,000 in the high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each as outside the purview of these cash balances.

Unless the Tribunal had at the back its mind the various probabilities which had been referred to by the Income-tax Officer as above it could not have come to the conclusion it did that the balance of Rs 1,41,000 comprising of the remaining 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each was not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

If the entries in the books of account were genuine

and the balance in Rokar and the balance in Almirah on January 12, 1946, aggregated to Rs. 3,10,681-13-9 and if it was not improbable that fairly good portion of the very large sums received by the appellant from time to time, say in excess of Rs. 10,000 at time

I959 consisted of high denomination notes, there was no Lalchcmd Bhagat basis for the conclusion that the appellant had satis-Ambical Ram factorily explained the possession of Rs. 1,50,000 in, v. the high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each leaving The Commissioner the possession of the balance of 141 high denomina-o/ Income-ta• tion notes of Its. 1,000 each unexplained. Either the Bhagwati J. Tribunal did not apply it§ mind to the situation or it arrived at the conclusion it did merely by applying the rule of thumb in which event the finding of fact reach-ed by it was such as could not reasonably be enter-tained or the fact found. were such as no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the Tribunal in arriving at its findings was influenced by irrelevant considerations or indulged in conjectures, surmises or suspicions in which event also its finding could not be sustained.Adverting to the various probabilities which weigh-ed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling foodgrains and other commodities to Bengal by country boats acquired by Sahibgunj and the notoriety achieved by Dhulian as great receiving centre for such commodities were merely background of suspicion and the appellant could not be tarred with the same brush as every Arhatdar and grain merchant who might have been indulging in smuggling operations, without an iota of evidenec in that behalf. The cancellation of the foodgrain licence at Nawgachia and the prosecution of the appellant under the Defence of India Rules was also of no consequence inasmuch as the appellant1 was acquitted of the offence with which it had been charged and its licence also was restored. The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in single transaction or in chain of transac-tions could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination notes,-this also was pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. As regards the disclosed volume of business in the year

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

under consideration in the Head Office and in branches I959 the Income-tax Officer indulged in speculation when he talked of the possibility oft.he appellant earning Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram considerable sum as against which it showed net loss v. of about Rs. 45,000. The Income-tax Officer indicated The Commissioner the probable source or sources from which the appel-of Income-tax lant could have earned large amount in the sum of Rs. 2,91,000 but the conclusion which he arrived at in Bhagwati J. regard to the appellant having earned this large amount during the year and which according to him represented the secreted profits of the appellant in its business was the result of pure conjectures and surmises on his part and had no foundation in fact and was not proved against the appellant on the record of the proceedings. If the conclusion of the Income-tax Officer was thus either perverse or vitiated by suspi-cions, conjectures or surmises the finding of the Tribunal was equally perverse or vitiated if the Tribunal took count of aH these probabilities and without any rhyme or reason and merely by rule of thumb, as it were, came to the conclusion that the possession of 150 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each.

The position as it obtained in this case was closely analogous to that which obtained in Messrs. J.V!ehta Parikh & Go. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (1). In that case the assessee had to satis-factorily explain the possession of 61 High Denomi-nation Notes of Rs. 1,000 each and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had satisfac-torily explained the possession of 31 of these notes and not of the remaining 30. The High Court had treated the finding of the Tribunal as finding of fact. It was held by this Cpurt that the entries in cash-book and the statements made in the affidavit in support of the explanation, which were binding on the Revenue and could not be questioned, clearly showed that it was quite within the range of possibility that the assessee had in their possession the 61 High denomination notes o'n the relevant date and their explanation in that (1) [1956) S.C.R. 626.

r959 behalf could not be assailed by purely imaginary calculation of the nature made by the income-tax Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It v. further held that the Tribunal made wrong approach The Commissioner and while accepting the assessee's explanation with of lne'"!'•-••~ regard to 31 of the notes, it had absolutely no reason to exclude the ;est as not covered by it in the absence Bhagwati J. of any evidence to show t at the exclu ed notes were profits earned by the assessee from undisclosed sources. The assessee having given reasonable explanation the TTibunal could not, by applying rule of thumb discard it so fa.r as the rest were concerned and act on mere surmise. In arriving at its decision this Court referred to the case of Ghunilal Ticamchand Goal Go. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (') and stated that the case before it should also have been similarly decided by the High Court in favour of the assessee.

decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in

in Kanpur Steel Go. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income" tax, U ttar Pradesh(') may also be noted in this context. The assessec there encashed 32 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each on January 12, 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, came into force, and when the Income-tax Officer called upon it to explain how these currency notes came into its possession, the assessee claimed that the notes represented part of its cash balance which, on that date, stood at Hs. 34,313. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation and assessed the. amount of Rs. 32,000 represented by these currency notes as suppressed income of the assessee from some undisclos-ed source. The Tribunal took into account the state-ment of sales relating to few days preceding the date of encashment and found that the highest amount of any one ~ngle transaction was only Hs. 399. The Tribunal also referred to another statement of the daily cash balances of the assessee from December 20,. 1945, to January 12, 1946, and noted that the cash balance of the assessee was steadily increasing. The Tribunal, however, estimated that high denomination

{I) [1955] '7 I.T.R. 602. (2) [1957] 32 I.T.R. 56.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

currency notes to t.he value of Rs. 7,000 only could

form part of the cash balance of the assessee. It Lalchand Bhagat

Lalchand Bhagat therefore upheld the assessment to the extent of Ambical Ram Rs. 25,000. On reference to the High Court it was v. held (i) that the burden of proof lay upon the Depart- The Commissiomr ment to prove that the sum of Rs. 32,000 represented 0! Income-ta" suppressed income of the assessee from undisclosed Bhagwati ]. sources, and the burden was not on the assessee to prove how it had received these high denomination currency notes; for, until the Demonetisation Ordinance came into force high denomination currency notes could be used as freely as notes of any lower denomination and no one had any idea that it should be necessary for him to explain the possession of high denomination currency notes, the assessee had naturally not kept any statement regarding the receipt of these currency notes, and it was for the first time on January 12, 1946, when the Ordinance came into force, that it became necessary for the assessee to explain its possession of these currency notes and (ii) that the explanation given by the assessee that the notes formed part of the cash balance of Rs. 34,000 and odd was fairly satisfactory and was not found by the Tribunal to be false ; the statement of sales was hardly relevant to the question; the Department, in relying on the entries relating to the bills of each day committed an error and no in-ference should have been drawn from them; that any one single transaction did not exceed Rs. 399 did not preclude the possibility of payment in high denomina-tion notes for such transaction ; therefore, the Tribunal rejected the explanation of the assessee on surmises, and there was no material for the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 25,000 represented suppressed income of the assessee from undisclosed sources .

• In arriving at the above decision the High Court referred to the cases of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Com-missioner of f71iCome-tax, Bombay ([1]) and Ohunilal Tic.amchand Coal Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa ([2]). •

It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving

at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in

(r) [1956) S.C.R. 626.

(2) [195~] 27 I.T.R, 602,

'959 suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without Lalchand Bhagat any evidence or upon view of the facts which could Ambicat Ram not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were v. such that no person acting judicially and properly The Commissioner instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or of Income-ta• Income-ta• the finding was, in other words, perverse and this Court is entitled to interfere.

of Income-ta• Income-ta• Bhagwali f.

We are therefore of opinion that the High Court was clearly in error in answering the referred question in the affirmative. The proper answer should have been in the negative having regard to all the circumstances of the case which we have adverted to above.

· The appeals will accordingly be allowed, the judg-ment and order passed by the High Court will be set aside and the referred question will be answered in the negative. The appellant will be entitled to its costs of the reference in the High Court and of these appeals in this Court as against the respondent.

Appeals allowed.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL

May r5. v.

KALU BABU LAL CHAND

(S. R. DAS, C. J., N. H. BHAGWATT, and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)

Income-tax-Income of the Hindu undivided fam'ily-Manager of the joint family using family funds for promoting company and subsequently becoming managing director-Remuneration of the managing director-Whether taxable as income of the undivided family.

R was the karta of the Hindu undivided family which became interested in business concern which ~'as then being carried on by others. With view to taking over the said business as going concern, company was floated \vith R as one of the promoters. Pursuant to an agreement with the vendors of the business and in anticipation of the incorporation of the company, Ron behalf of the company, took over the concern, carried it on and supplied the finance at all stages out of the joint family funds. On December rg, 1930, the contemplated company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as