1977 (8) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was any evidence in support of the Tribunal's finding that the assessee's business in Burma had been acquired by the Government.
2. Whether the Tribunal ignored any relevant evidence relied upon by the assessee in arriving at its conclusion that the assessee did not carry on any business in Burma during the accounting year.

Issue 1: Evidence Supporting Tribunal's Finding of Business Acquisition
The Tribunal found that the assessee's business in Burma had been acquired by the Government of Burma. The company argued that the ITO and AAC's findings regarding the stocks were contradictory and unsupported by evidence. The company also contended that the words "marketing assets" in the directors' report were misconstrued. However, the court held that the word "marketing" referred to produce to be sold in the market, thus rejecting the company's interpretation. The court found no inconsistency between the findings of the ITO and AAC regarding the stocks, as the closing stocks of 1962 were the opening stocks of 1963. The court noted that the company did not argue before the Tribunal that its stocks were not taken over by the Government of Burma, and no such question arose from the Tribunal's order. The AAC's finding that the business was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Burma was not challenged before the Tribunal, and thus, the Tribunal was bound to act on that finding. The court concluded that there was ample evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that the business was acquired by the Government of Burma and answered this issue in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue 2: Ignoring Relevant Evidence
The company argued that the Tribunal ignored relevant evidence, specifically a note sent to the ITO, which stated that the company continued to sell trading stocks in Burma during 1963. The court found that this note was not relied upon by the company in arguments before the ITO and AAC, and no evidence was provided to support the note. The Tribunal stated it had considered the "rival contentions," indicating it did not ignore any relevant evidence. The court held that the Tribunal did not ignore any relevant evidence relied upon by the company and answered this issue in the negative and against the assessee.

Conclusion:
The court held that there was ample evidence to support the Tribunal's finding that the assessee's business in Burma was acquired by the Government. It also found that the Tribunal did not ignore any relevant evidence in arriving at its conclusion. Both issues were decided against the assessee, and the reference was answered accordingly. There was no order as to costs.