1980 (9) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Taxability of Rs. 1,58,250 as income from horse racing.
2. Onus of proving the source of income.
3. Credibility of evidence and statements provided by the assessee.
4. Tribunal's reliance on personal knowledge and previous cases.
5. Alleged perverse findings by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis

1. Taxability of Rs. 1,58,250 as Income from Horse Racing
The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 1,58,250 disclosed by the assessee as winnings from horse racing should be considered taxable income. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disbelieved the assessee's claim, concluding that the transactions were name-lending and the amount was income from undisclosed sources.

2. Onus of Proving the Source of Income
The assessee contended that he had discharged his primary onus of proving the source of the receipt by providing betting memos, admissions from the bookmaker K. N. Chakraborty, and corroborating statements from S. R. Paul. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially upheld the assessee's claim, stating that the source had been shown and the evidence could not be rejected on suspicion. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, emphasizing that the burden of proof was on the assessee to establish that the amount was exempt under s. 10(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3. Credibility of Evidence and Statements Provided by the Assessee
The Tribunal found the assessee's story of winning large sums in a short period and then ceasing to bet altogether to be unbelievable. Discrepancies in the assessee's statements and the inability to produce corroborative evidence from K. N. Chakraborty or his books further weakened the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's dealings with Chakraborty and other parties through cheques were contrary to the usual practice of bookmakers settling transactions in cash.

4. Tribunal's Reliance on Personal Knowledge and Previous Cases
The Tribunal took into account its previous findings where K. N. Chakraborty's transactions with other parties had been disbelieved. The Tribunal also relied on its understanding of normal human behavior and betting practices, which the assessee argued was irrelevant and constituted a misdirection in law. However, the court held that the Tribunal's conclusions were not unreasonable or perverse and were based on a cumulative assessment of the facts.

5. Alleged Perverse Findings by the Tribunal
The assessee argued that the Tribunal's findings were perverse, based on suspicion, conjecture, and irrelevant material. The court examined whether the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence. It was held that the Tribunal had not acted on irrelevant considerations or personal prejudices. The court noted that the assessee's claim of winnings was inconsistent with normal behavior, and the Tribunal's disbelief of the assessee's story was justified.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the Tribunal had sufficient material to support its findings and that its decision was neither unreasonable nor perverse. The first part of the question referred was answered in the affirmative, and the second part in the negative, both in favor of the revenue. The court made no order as to costs.

Separate Judgment
Dipak Kumar Sen J. agreed with the judgment.