Jambudas v. Income Tax Commissioner

1. The question whether the applicant has been rightly found to have concealed his income from the Income-tax Department depends upon the decision of the question whether or not on the facts found the inference of concealment could be based.

2. The proper legal effect of proved facts is a question of law as held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Nafar Chandra Pal v. Shuukur A.I.R 1918 P.C 92 , 46 Cal. 189 , 45 I.A 183 (P.C). Moreover the Income-tax Department must always bear in mind that the normal presumption is in favour of good faith and not of bad faith on the part of the assessee. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to ask the Crown to start with a presumption that the entry in the Havana Khata Akola was made in the ordinary course and with no intention to conceal the income, and that it was for the Crown to prove the contrary. Suffice it to say at this stage that as the learned Commissioner does not seem for have approached the case from the right point of view of burden of proof, there is likelihood of the conclusions drawn by him being vitiated for want of proper appreciation of facts or for misapplication of the law to them. This Court can always test the soundness in point of law of the conclusions drawn from proved facts. I am satisfied that the case involved questions of law on which the? Commissioner could be compelled to make a reference to this Court. The pleader's fee Rs. 50. The non-applicant shall pay applicant's costs.

3. Order accordingly.