Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1973 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1973 (2) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax


  1. 2023 (5) TMI 746 - SC
  2. 2023 (4) TMI 1057 - SC
  3. 1988 (5) TMI 1 - SC
  4. 1980 (5) TMI 2 - SC
  5. 2014 (12) TMI 306 - HC
  6. 2008 (9) TMI 500 - HC
  7. 2008 (2) TMI 423 - HC
  8. 1996 (8) TMI 36 - HC
  9. 1992 (4) TMI 29 - HC
  10. 1991 (2) TMI 76 - HC
  11. 1991 (2) TMI 87 - HC
  12. 1990 (7) TMI 80 - HC
  13. 1986 (1) TMI 69 - HC
  14. 1984 (6) TMI 14 - HC
  15. 1983 (10) TMI 18 - HC
  16. 1982 (11) TMI 28 - HC
  17. 1982 (8) TMI 9 - HC
  18. 1982 (3) TMI 60 - HC
  19. 1981 (9) TMI 16 - HC
  20. 1980 (5) TMI 22 - HC
  21. 1978 (8) TMI 15 - HC
  22. 1978 (3) TMI 53 - HC
  23. 1975 (12) TMI 43 - HC
  24. 1975 (11) TMI 32 - HC
  25. 1974 (10) TMI 29 - HC
  26. 1974 (8) TMI 4 - HC
  27. 2023 (12) TMI 871 - AT
  28. 2023 (6) TMI 1114 - AT
  29. 2023 (2) TMI 1260 - AT
  30. 2021 (3) TMI 1113 - AT
  31. 2020 (7) TMI 504 - AT
  32. 2020 (1) TMI 823 - AT
  33. 2018 (11) TMI 949 - AT
  34. 2018 (1) TMI 1409 - AT
  35. 2018 (1) TMI 318 - AT
  36. 2017 (11) TMI 320 - AT
  37. 2017 (5) TMI 471 - AT
  38. 2016 (10) TMI 1046 - AT
  39. 2016 (8) TMI 263 - AT
  40. 2015 (12) TMI 1873 - AT
  41. 2015 (12) TMI 1517 - AT
  42. 2015 (2) TMI 990 - AT
  43. 2014 (11) TMI 761 - AT
  44. 2014 (4) TMI 669 - AT
  45. 2013 (12) TMI 466 - AT
  46. 2012 (6) TMI 900 - AT
  47. 2012 (9) TMI 252 - AT
  48. 2012 (7) TMI 303 - AT
  49. 2012 (5) TMI 704 - AT
  50. 2012 (6) TMI 325 - AT
  51. 2009 (6) TMI 117 - AT
  52. 2009 (4) TMI 542 - AT
  53. 2008 (2) TMI 458 - AT
  54. 2007 (4) TMI 401 - AT
  55. 2006 (8) TMI 239 - AT
  56. 2006 (5) TMI 264 - AT
  57. 2005 (11) TMI 195 - AT
  58. 2005 (6) TMI 238 - AT
  59. 2004 (12) TMI 321 - AT
  60. 2004 (3) TMI 358 - AT
  61. 2004 (1) TMI 333 - AT
  62. 2002 (3) TMI 927 - AT
  63. 2001 (5) TMI 156 - AT
  64. 2001 (4) TMI 202 - AT
  65. 2000 (5) TMI 157 - AT
  66. 1999 (8) TMI 121 - AT
  67. 1999 (1) TMI 52 - AT
  68. 1997 (10) TMI 87 - AT
  69. 1997 (6) TMI 359 - AT
  70. 1997 (6) TMI 37 - AT
  71. 1994 (12) TMI 101 - AT
  72. 1994 (2) TMI 125 - AT
  73. 1993 (1) TMI 132 - AT
  74. 1992 (7) TMI 146 - AT
  75. 1992 (3) TMI 104 - AT
  76. 1992 (3) TMI 102 - AT
  77. 1991 (2) TMI 192 - AT
Issues Involved:

1. Reliance on criminal court judgments and evidence in income tax assessment.
2. Proof of ownership of gold by the petitioner.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Applicability of Section 69 or 69A of the Income-tax Act.
5. Claim of loss due to confiscation of gold as a deductible loss.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reliance on Criminal Court Judgments and Evidence in Income Tax Assessment:

The court held that the provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply to proceedings before the Income-tax Officer. It is permissible for the Income-tax Officer to rely on the judgment of the criminal court. The Punjab High Court in Anraj Narain Dass v. Commissioner of Income-tax and the Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax supported this view. Thus, the Income-tax Officer was justified in relying on the material from the criminal court to assess the petitioner's income.

2. Proof of Ownership of Gold by the Petitioner:

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to infer ownership of the gold by the petitioner. The Income-tax authorities relied on circumstantial evidence, such as the petitioner's control over the operation, possession of the gold, and his conduct in offering a bribe to the customs officials. The court concluded that these facts constituted sufficient material to infer ownership. The principle in Section 110 of the Evidence Act, which presumes ownership from possession, was also applicable. The petitioner's failure to provide an alternative explanation for possession further justified the inference of ownership.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The court found no violation of natural justice. The petitioner did not offer himself as a witness nor did he request the cross-examination of witnesses before the Income-tax Officer. The grievance regarding cross-examination was raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of violation of natural justice was not supported by the facts.

4. Applicability of Section 69 or 69A of the Income-tax Act:

The court acknowledged some confusion in the application of Section 69 or 69A by the lower authorities. However, it concluded that both sections are rules of evidence. Since Section 69A was in force at the time of the trial, it was applicable. The petitioner, found to be the owner of the gold, had the value of the gold presumed as income from undisclosed sources under Section 69A.

5. Claim of Loss Due to Confiscation of Gold as a Deductible Loss:

The court examined whether the loss from confiscation of gold could be claimed as a deductible loss. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that penalties for infraction of law are not deductible as they are not commercial losses. The court distinguished between commercial losses and penalties for illegal activities. It concluded that the loss from confiscation of gold, resulting from illegal activities, could not be considered a commercial loss deductible under the Income-tax Act. The court did not agree with the Punjab High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Piara Singh, which allowed such a deduction.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the assessment of income based on the ownership of the gold and denying the claim for deduction of loss due to confiscation. There was no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates