9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made under Section 23(3). In the subsequent assessment year also the books for the account year were not produced for the same reason. The assessment was made under Section 23(3) on an estimate income of ₹ 5,000 though the assessee had turned a loss of ₹ 8,708. That loss could not be proved in the absence of account books. In the assessment year 1945-46, which is the year with which we are concerned, the assessee was required by a notice under Section 22(4) to produce the account books for the two years preceding the account year. The assessee pleaded loss of those books. He offered evidence in support of his contention. It was disbelieved and it was found that the story of loss of books was not true. The Income- tax Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section would follow the failure to comply with any of the terms of the notice and a partial default involves the same consequences as a total default: Banarsi Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore [1936] 4 I.T.R. 142 and Tulsi Das Nagin Chand v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1938] 6 I.T.R. 385. In the assessment year in question, the Income-tax Officer was certainly entitled to issue a notice under Section 22(4) requiring the applicant to produce the account books of the three previous years, to test the correctness of the return submitted by him. There is therefore no substance in the argument advanced for the applicant that the books were not really required and assessment could have been made without those books since the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r year for which it is made. No doubt, a decision reached in one year would be a cogent factor in the determination of a similar point in a following year, but I cannot think that it is to be treated as an estoppel binding upon the same party for all years. The above view has been qualified in some cases. In Shankaralinga's case A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 209 the learned Judges held that: Where income-tax officials have after enquiry proceeded to assess the assessee on a certain basis, though they may be entitled to reopen the enquiry they cannot arbitrarily change the assessment simply on the ground that the succeeding officer does not agree with the preceding officer's finding. The position is just like the position of any two par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essor in office simply on the ground that the succeeding officer does not agree with the preceding officer's findings. The assessee was given ample opportunity to prove the alleged loss of account books. He availed himself of that opportunity by examining a number of witnesses. From the order of the Income-tax Officer for the year 1943-44 it appears that certain correspondence with Police authorities and others was produced. In the next year, no additional evidence was adduced. The statement was accepted and income was calculated from the other evidence adduced. It is not the applicant's case that all the evidence now adduced by him was placed before the Income-tax Officer in the preceding years. It thus appears that there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the applicant does not help him. There it was held:- The sufficiency of evidence is a question of fact, but the question whether there is evidence at all from which an inference can be drawn is a question of law....... In every case the finding, apart from sufficiency or otherwise, shall have to be examined in order to find out whether in the circumstances of the case a reasonable man would draw the inference from that evidence which has been drawn by the Income-tax Officer. The argument of the learned counsel means that a different conclusion was possible on the evidence before the Income-tax authorities. Even if that were so, the finding is none the less a finding of fact. This Court is not a Court of appeal to examine th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
