9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act for reference of questions of law to the High Court. 2. Assessment of income tax on remittances received by the assessee from Java. 3. Disputed amount of remittances received by the assessee. 4. Assertion by the assessee regarding closure of Java business. 5. Determination of whether the receipt of &8377; 12,800 was income or capital receipt. Analysis: The judgment involves an application under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, requesting the Commissioner to refer questions of law to the High Court. The applicant had initially submitted five questions of law under Section 66(2) of the Act, but upon review, it was found that no question of law arose for reference. The Court concluded that the application must fail as no valid legal issue was identified for referral. The case pertains to the assessment of income tax on remittances received by the assessee from Java over several years. Despite the assessee's claim that the Java business had been closed in 1936, subsequent remittances were received and assessed for taxation. The Income-tax authorities included various amounts of remittances in the assessments for different years, leading to a dispute regarding the accuracy and nature of these remittances. One of the key contentions in the case was the disputed amount of &8377; 12,800, which the Income-tax Officer considered as income. The assessee challenged this characterization, suggesting that it might be a capital receipt instead. However, the Court noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support this claim, and therefore, the presumption of it being income stood unchallenged. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the grievance of the assessee seemed to be primarily factual rather than legal. Despite assistance from the assessee's advocate, no valid legal point was identified to warrant a reference to the High Court. The Income-tax authorities were found to have acted reasonably based on the evidence available, and there was no obligation to meticulously trace the source of each remittance. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application, holding that there was no legal basis for the reference to proceed. The applicant was directed to bear the costs of the reference, and it was clarified that these costs could not be covered by the deposit made under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between factual disputes and genuine legal issues in tax matters to determine the appropriateness of seeking judicial intervention.
|
