Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay

Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) 1956 मेसर्समेहतापारिखएंडकंपनी। .वी 10 मई -आयआयोगकर, बम्बई। [ एस. आर. दाससी. जे., भगवतीऔरवेंकटटरामा आयरजे.] ---आयकरअघोषितस्रोतोंसेआयहलफनामोंद्वारासमर्थितखातोंकेआधारपरमूल्यांकननिर्धारितीकास्पष्टीकरणखातोंको-वास्तविककेरूपमेंस्वीकारकियाजाताहैऔरहलफनामोंमेंदिएगएबयानोंकोप्रमाणितनहींकियाजाताहैबिनाकिसी---सबूतकेनिष्कर्षसाबितयास्वीकारकिएगएतथ्योंसेनिष्कर्षयदिकानूनकेप्रश्नहस्तक्षेपकासिद्धांत भारतीयआय-करअधिनियम(1922 का11), एस. एस.62 ( 2 ) , 23 ( 3 ) , 26 - ए.अपीलार्थीगण, एस. एस. केतहतमूल्यांकनकीगईएकसाझेदारीफर्महै।23 ( 3 ) औरआयकरअधिनियमके26- एकोनिर्धारणवर्षकेदौरानआयकरअधिकारीद्वारायहबतानेकेलिएबुलायागयाथाकिउनकेपास61 हजाररुपयेकेनोटटकैसेऔरकबआए, जिन्हेंउन्होंने1946 केउच्चमूल्यवर्गकेबैंकनोटट(विमुद्रीकरण) अध्यादेशकीघोषणाकेबाद18 जनवरी, 1946 कोभुनायाथा,जिसकेतहतऐसेनोटट12 जनवरी, 1946 कीसमाप्तिपरवैधमुद्रानहींरहगएथे।करनिर्धारकोंने20 दिसंबर, 1945 से18 जनवरी, 1946 तकअपनीनकद-पुस्तकप्रविष्टियांप्रस्तुतकीं, जिन्हेंआयकरअधिकारीनेसहीमाना, जिन्होंनेहालांकि,खातोंकीआगेकोईजांचनहींकी, औरप्रविष्टियोंसेपताचलाकि12 जनवरी, 1946 कोहाथमेंनकदशेषराशिरु।69,891-2-6 .अपीलार्थीगणकामामलायहथाकिउक्तनोटटनकदशेषराशिकाएकहिस्साथेऔरअपनेमामलेमेंउन्होंनेअपीलीयसहायकमिशनरीकेसमक्षवास्तवमेंभुगतानकरनेवालेव्यक्तियोंद्वारातीनहलफनामेदायरकिए, जोयह-साबितकरनेकेलिएनकदपुस्तिकामेंकुछप्रविष्टियोंकेसंबंधमेंथेकिरु।20,000 28 दिसंबर, 1945 कोरु।15,000 6जनवरी, 1946 कोऔररु।8,000 , रु. कीराशिमेंसे।8,500 , 8 जनवरी, 1946 कोहजाररुपयेकेनोटोंकाभुगतान-कियागया।आयकरअधिकारीऔरअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तनेअपनीखुदकीगणनापरअपीलमेंकहाकिअपीलार्थीगणद्वाराइतनेसारेहजाररुपयेकेनोटोंकाकब्जाअसंभवथाऔरइननोटोंकोअघोषितस्रोतोंसेआयकाप्रतिनिधित्वकरनाचाहिएऔरइसतरहअपीलार्थीगणकीआकलनयोग्यआयमेंजोड़ाजानाचाहिए।नतोअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तऔरनहीआयकरअधिकारी, जोअपीलकीसुनवाईमेंमौजूदथे, नेहलफनामोंमेंउनकेबयानकेसंदर्भमेंउनकीजिरहकरनेकेलिएकहा।अपीलीयन्यायाधिकरणने31 नोटोंकेसंबंधमेंनिर्धारितीकेस्पष्टीकरणकोस्वीकारकरलिया, लेकिनबाकीकेसंबंधमेंनहींऔरमामलेकोउच्चन्यायालयमेंभेजनेकेलिएउनकेआवेदनकोखारिजकरदिया।निर्धारितीउच्चन्यायालयगएऔरन्यायाधिकरणकोनिर्देशदियागया।66 ( 2 ) राज्यएस. सी. आर. सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 627 अपनेनिर्णयकेलिएएकमामला।मुख्यप्रश्नकाउत्तरदेतेहुए, 1956 केउच्चन्यायालयकीरायथीकिन्यायाधिकरणकानिष्कर्षएकनिष्कर्षथा इसतरहकेनिष्कर्षकेआधारपरतथ्ययानिष्कर्षकानिर्धारणऔरयहकहनासंभवनहींथाकिइसतरहकानिष्कर्षयानिष्कर्षअनुचितथायापारिखएंडकंपनीवी। मनमाना। आयुक्तने(प्रतिकुरियम) निर्णयदियाकिउच्चन्यायालयनेआयकरसेइनकारकरनेमेंगलतीकीथी, न्यायाधिकरणकेनिष्कर्षमेंहस्तक्षेपकरनेकेलिएजोबॉम्बेपरआधारितथा। साक्ष्यऔरअपीलसफलहोनीचाहिए। . . . -प्रतिसीजेऔरजेभगवतीसिद्धतथ्योंपरआधारितनिष्कर्षयास्वीकारकियागयातथ्यकानिष्कर्षहोसकताहैलेकिनक्याकोईविशेषजानकारीइसतरहकेनिष्कर्षोंसेवैधरूपसेनिष्कर्षनिकालाजासकताहै कानूनकासवाल।हालांकि, जहांतथ्यखोजनेकाअधिकारहैबिनाकिसीसाक्ष्यकेयाउनतथ्योंकेदृष्टिकोणसेकार्यकियाजोकरसकतेथेउचितरूपसेमनोरंजननहींकियागयायापाएगएतथ्यऐसेथेकिनहींसंबंधितकेरूपमेंन्यायिकऔरउचितरूपसेनिर्देशितकार्यकरनेवालाव्यक्तिकानूनयहपतालगासकताहैकिअदालतकोहस्तक्षेपकरनेकाअधिकारहै।चुनिलालटिकमचंदकोयलाकंपनीलिमिटेडबनामआयआयुक्त कर, बिहारऔरउड़ीसा, ([1955]) 27 आई. टी. आर. 602, लागूकियागया। कैमरूनवी।प्रेन्डरगास्टट(करनिरीक्षक), ([1940] 8 आई. टी. आर. ( पूरक.) 75), बॉमफोर्डबनाम।ओसबोर्न(एच. एम. करनिरीक्षक), ([1942] 10 आई. टी. आर. (पूरक) 27) औरएडवर्ड्स(करनिरीक्षक) v.बेयरस्टो औरएकअन्य, ([1955] 28 आई. टी. आर. 579), संदर्भित।उच्चन्यायालयनेट्राइकेनिष्कर्षपरविचारकरनेमेंगलतीकीथीबूनलतथ्यकीखोजकेरूपमेंऔरकेसहीसिद्धांतोंकोलागूकरनेमेंविफलरहा ऐसेमामलोंमेंहस्तक्षेपलागूहोताहै। नकद-पुस्तिकामेंप्रविष्टियाँऔरए. एफ. आई. मेंदिएगएविवरणस्पष्टीकरणकेसमर्थनमेंडेविड, जोबाध्यकारीथेराजस्वऔरपूछताछनहींकीजासकी, स्पष्टरूपसेदिखायाकियहथाकाफीसंभावनाकीसीमाकेभीतरकिअपीलार्थीगणनेअपनेपर61 संबंधिततिथिउच्चमूल्यकेनोटोंकोअपनेपासरखेंऔरउनकीव्याख्यापरविशुद्धरूपसेकाल्पनिकगणनाद्वाराहमलानहींकियाजासका। -आयकरअधिकारीयाअपीलीयद्वाराकीगईप्रकृति सहायकआयुक्त। न्यायाधिकरणनेएकगलतदृष्टिकोणअपनायाऔरस्वीकारकरतेहुए बाकीकोबाहरकरनेकाकोईकारणनहींहैक्योंकिइसमेंशामिलनहींहै।यहदिखानेकेलिएकिसीभीसबूतकाअभावकिबाहरकिएगएनोटटअनुकूलथे अपीलार्थीगणद्वाराअज्ञातस्रोतोंसेअर्जितमामले।दएपेल न्यायाधिकरणएकउचितस्पष्टीकरणदेनेकेबाद, अंगूठेकेनियमकोलागूकरके, इसेतबतकखारिजनहींकरसकताथाजबतककिबाकीकोस्वीकारनहींकियागयाथाऔरकेवलअनुमानपरकार्यनहींकरसकताथा। Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1956 MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. v. May 10 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. (S. R. DAS C.J., BHAGWATI a.nd VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Income-tax-I nconie jroni undisclosed so11,rces-Assessment-Assessee' s explanation based on accounts supported by offidavits-Accounts accepted as genuine and statements in affidavits not con-troverted-Finding based on no evidence-Inference front. proved or iidmitted facts-If questions of law-Principle of interferencc-Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), ss. 62(2), 23(3), 26·A. The appellants, a partnership firm assessed under ss. 23(3) and 26· A of the Income·tax Act, were called upon by the Income·tax Officer during the assessment year 1947-48 to explain how and when they came to possess 61 thousand·rupee currency notes which they had encashed on the 18th January, 1946, after the promulgation of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance of 1946, under which such notes ceased to be legal tender on the expiry of the 12th of January, 1946. The assessees produced their cash-book entries from the 20th December, 1945, to the 18th Janu-ary, 1946, which were accepted as correct by the Income-tax Officer, who, however, made no further scrutiny of the accounts, and the entries showed that on the 12th of January, 1946, the cash balance in hand was Rs. 69,891·2-6. The case of the appellants was that the said notes were a part of the cash balance and in further sup-port of their case they filed before the Appellate Assistant Com-missioner three a1,Edavits by persons actually making the payments, in respect of certain entries in the cash-book to prove that Rs. 20,000 on the 28th December, 1945, Rs. 15,000 on the 6th of January, 1946, and Rs. 8,000,, out of a sum of Rs. 8,500, on the 8th of Janu-ary, 1946, were paid in thousand-rupee notes. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal, on a. ca.!culation of their own, held that the possession by the appellants of so many thousand-rupee notes was an impossibility and that these notes must represent income from undisclosed sources and as such be added to the assessable income of the appellants. Neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present at the hearing of the appeal, called for the de-ponents in order to cross-examine them with reference to their statement in the affidavits. The Appellate Tribunal Ql1 appeal accepted the explanation of the assessees in respect of 31 of the notes but not with regard to the rest and rejected their application for a reference of the matter to the High Court. The assessees moved the High Court and the Tribunal was directed under s. 66(2) to state a case for its decision. In answering the main question, the High Court was of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal was a find-ing of fact or an inferencB based on such finding and it was not possible to say that such finding or inference was unreasonable or arbitrary. 7956 Messrs M, hta Parikh and Co. v. The Commissioner of Income.tax Bombay ' Held (per curiam), that the High Court was in error in refusing to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal which was based on no evidence and the appeal must succeed. Per C.J. and BHAGWATI J.-Conclusions based on facts proved or admitted may be conclusions of fact but whether a particular inf-erence can legitimately be drawn from such conclusions may be a question of law. Where, however, the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and propel'!y instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the court is entitled to interfere. Chitnilal Ticamchancl Coal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, ([1955]) 27 I.T.R. 602), applied. Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) -आयकरअधिकारीयाअपीलीयद्वाराकीगईप्रकृति सहायकआयुक्त। न्यायाधिकरणनेएकगलतदृष्टिकोणअपनायाऔरस्वीकारकरतेहुए बाकीकोबाहरकरनेकाकोईकारणनहींहैक्योंकिइसमेंशामिलनहींहै।यहदिखानेकेलिएकिसीभीसबूतकाअभावकिबाहरकिएगएनोटटअनुकूलथे अपीलार्थीगणद्वाराअज्ञातस्रोतोंसेअर्जितमामले।दएपेल न्यायाधिकरणएकउचितस्पष्टीकरणदेनेकेबाद, अंगूठेकेनियमकोलागूकरके, इसेतबतकखारिजनहींकरसकताथाजबतककिबाकीकोस्वीकारनहींकियागयाथाऔरकेवलअनुमानपरकार्यनहींकरसकताथा। . -जेवेंकटटरामाअय्यरकेअनुसारन्यायाधिकरणकानिष्कर्षकिरुपयेमूल्यकेउच्चमूल्यकेनोटट।30,000 कोनकाप्रतिनिधित्वकिया अपीलार्थीगणकेअवैधलाभकिसीभीसाक्ष्यद्वाराअसमर्थितहैं।यहकानूनकीत्रुटिथीऔरइसेदरकिनारकियाजासकताथा।किइसतरह 628 उच्चमूल्यकेकईनोटटकेहिस्सेकेरूपमेंरखेजानेचाहिएथे। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट[1956] 1956 इतनेलंबेसमयतकनकद, अत्यधिकसंदिग्धहोसकताहैलेकिननिर्णय।कानूनीगवाहीपरआधारितहोनाचाहिएनकिसंदेहपर। मेसर्समेहता पारिखएंडकंपनी।यहसवालकिक्याखातेवास्तविकथेयानहीं, तथ्यकाएकशुद्धसवालथाऔरयहनिष्कर्षकिवेवास्तविकथे, आयुक्तकोराजस्वऔरविषयदोनोंपरबाध्यकरताथा। -आयकर, सिविलअपीलीयन्यायनिर्णयःसिविलअपील बॉम्बे .वाई 1954 . 81।कासं दिनांकितनिर्णयऔरआदेशसेअपील 101953 बॉम्बेउच्चन्यायालयकामार्चमें आओ-1952 काकरसंदर्भसंख्या35।अपीलार्थीकीओरसेआर. जे. कोलाहऔरआई. एन. श्रॉफ।जी. N.Joshi, पोरसए. मेहताऔरआर. एच. ढेबर प्रत्यर्थी 1956. 10 -मई।निम्नलिखितनिर्णयथे वितरितकियागया। . -जेभगवतीद्वारादोप्रश्नसंदर्भितकिएगएथे -आयकरअपीलीयन्यायाधिकरणसेउच्चन्यायालयतक करअधिनियम।( 1 ) क्याइसेउचितठहरानेकेलिएकोईसामग्रीहैरु. कामूल्यांकन।30,000 ( तीसहजाररुपये)रु. कीराशिमेंसे।61,000 ( साठरुपया-हजार) (आयकरऔरअतिरिक्तलाभकरकेलिए)औरव्यावसायिकलाभकरउद्देश्य) काप्रतिनिधित्वकरतेहुएउच्चमूल्यकेनोटोंकामूल्यजिन्हेंभुनायागयाथाजनवरीकेअठारहवेंदिनएकहजारनौएकसौछियालिस, और( 2 ) चाहेकिसीभीस्थितिमेंआदेशोंकेकारणराजस्वअधिकारियोंनेयहनहींपायाहैकिकथितवस्तुकथितअज्ञातव्यस्तसेथीनेसकालाभरु।30,000 ( रुपया तीसहजार) कानूनमेंअतिरिक्तलाभकेलिएउचितहै ?करऔरव्यावसायिकलाभकरउद्देश्यउच्चन्यायालयनेपहलेप्रश्नकाउत्तरदिया सकारात्मकलेकिनदूसरेप्रश्नकाउत्तरदेनेसेइनकारकरदिया, इसरायकाहोनाकिभलेहीउसनेपूछाथा 66 न्यायाधिकरणउसप्रश्नकोधाराकेतहतसंदर्भितकरेगा ( 2 ) अधिनियमकेअनुसार, ऐसाकरनेकाकोईअधिकारक्षेत्रनहींथाक्योंकिअपीलार्थीगणनेट्रिब्यूनसेनहींपूछाथा!उल्लेखकरनेकेलिए $ एस. सी. आर. सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 629 1956 दूसराप्रश्नऔरइसलिए, न्यायाधिकरणद्वाराउसप्रश्नकोउठानेयाउठानेसेइनकारकरनेकाकोईप्रश्ननहींउठा। मेसर्समेहता इसेउच्चन्यायालयकेनिर्णयकेलिएप्रस्तुतकरें। पारिखएंडकंपनी। अपीलार्थीगणव्यवसायकरनेवालीएकसाझेदारीफर्महैं। .वी आयुक्त अहमदाबादमेंमिलस्टोरमें।इनकामुख्यकार्यालयहै -आयकर, अहमदाबादऔरउनकाशाखाकार्यालयबॉम्बेमेंहै। बॉम्बे गवर्नर-जनरलने12 जनवरी1946 कोउच्चमूल्यकेबैंकनोटट(डेमो) जारीकिए। भगवतीजे। नेटीकरण) अध्यादेश, 1946 औरउच्चमूल्यवर्गकेबैंकनोटट12 जनवरी, 1946 कीसमाप्तिपरवैधमुद्रानहींरहगए।अध्यादेशकेखंड6 केअनुसारअपीलार्थीगणने18 जनवरी1946 कोरुपयेकेउच्चमूल्यकेनोटोंकोभुनाया।1,000 प्रत्येककाअंकितमूल्यरु।61,000 .यहकैलेंडरवर्ष1946 मेंकियागयाथाक्योंकियहआकलनवर्ष1947-48 केसाथलेखावर्षहै। वर्षकेलिएमूल्यांकनकार्यवाहीकेदौरान 1947-48 आय-करअधिकारीनेअपीलकरनेवालेकोयहसाबितकरनेकेलिएकहाकिकिससेऔरकबउक्तउच्च रुपयेकेमूल्यकेनोटट।61,000 अपीलार्थीगणद्वाराप्राप्तकिएगएथेऔरइसकेपिछलेमालिकोंकीईमानदारीभी।20 दिसंबर1945 से18 जनवरी1946 तकविभिन्नतिथियोंपरअपीलार्थीगणकीलेखापुस्तकोंमेंप्रविष्टियोंऔरनकदशेषकीस्थितिऔरसंबंधितअवधिकेदौरानप्राप्तियोंऔरभुगतानोंकीप्रकृतिऔरविस्तारकीजांचकरनेकेबाद, आयकर18 अधिकारीइसनिष्कर्षपरपहुंचेकिअपीलार्थीगणकेतर्ककोबनाएरखनेकेलिएउन्हेंयहमानलेनाहोगाकिरुपयेकेउच्चमूल्यकेनोटटथे।1,000 प्रत्येक1 जनवरी1946 कोनकदशेषराशिमेंऔर1 जनवरी1946 केबादऔर13 जनवरी1946 सेपहलेकीसभीनकदप्राप्तियांरुपयेकेमुद्रानोटोंमेंप्राप्तकीगईथीं।1,000 प्रत्येक, एकधारणाजिसेउन्होंनेकिसीभीसबूतकेअभावमेंबनानेयोग्यपाया।इसलिएउन्होंनेरुपयेकीराशिजोड़दी।61,000 अपीलार्थीगणकीअघोषितआयको स्रोतों।अपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तकोअपीलकरनेपर अपीलार्थीगणनेउनकेसमक्षतीनव्यक्तियोंकेशपथपत्रप्रस्तुतकिएताकियहदिखायाजासकेकिअपीलार्थीगणकोरु।20,000 , 28, 630 को1,000 रुपयेकेनोटोंमें सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट [ 1956 ] Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) Chitnilal Ticamchancl Coal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, ([1955]) 27 I.T.R. 602), applied. Cameron v. Prendergast (Inspector of Taxes), ([1940] 8 I.T.R. (Suppl.) 75), Bamford v. Osborne (H. M. Inspector of Taxes), ([1942] 10 I.T.R. (Suppl.) 27) and Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow and Another, ([1955] 28 I.T.R. 579), referred to. The High Court was in error in treating the finding of the Tri-bunal as a finding of fact and failed to apply the true principles of interference applicable to such cases. The entries in cash-book and the statements made in the affi· davits in support of the explanation, which were binding on the Revenue and could not be questioned, clearly showed that it was quite within the range of possibility that the appellants had in their possession the 61 high denomination notes on the relevant date and their explanation could not be assailed by a purely imaginary calcu-lation of the nature made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal made a wrong approach and while accepting the appellants' explanation with regard to 31 of the notes, it had absolutely no reason to exclude the rest as not covered by it in absence of any evidence to show that the excluded notes were pro-fits earned by the appellants from undisclosed sources. The appel-lants having given a reasonable explanation the Tribunal could not, by applying a rule of thumb, discard it so far as the rest were con-cerned and act on mere surmise. Per VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value Rs. 30,000 represented con-cealed profits of the appellants being unsupported by any evidence amounted to an error of law and was liable to be set aside. That so many notes of high denomination should have been held as part of 1956 Messrs Mehta Parikh and Co. v. The Comtnissioner of lnco,ne~tax, Botnbay the cash for so long a time, might be highly suspicious but decisions must be founded on legal testimony and not on suspicion. The question whether the accounts were genuine or not was a pure question of fact a·na a finding that they were genuine was bind· ing both on the Revenue and the subject. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th March 1953 of the Bombay High Court in In-come-tax Reference No. 35 of 1952. R.J. Kolah and/. N. Shroff for the appellant. G. N.Joshi, Porus A. Mehta and R.H. Dhebar for the respondent. 1956: May 10. The following Judgments were delivered. BHAGWATI J.-Two questions were referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the High Court of Bombay under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. (1) Whether there is any material to justify the assessment of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) from out of the sum of Rs. 61,000 (Rupees sixtyone thousand) (for Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax and Business Profits Tax purposes) representing the value of high denomination notes which were en cashed on the eighteenth day of January one thousand nine hundred and forty six, and (2) Whether in any event by reason of the orders of the Revenue Authorities not having found that the alleged item was from alleged undisclosed busi-ness profits the assessment of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) is in law justified for Excess Profits Tax and Business Profits Tax purposes? The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative but refused to answer the second question, being of the opinion that even though it had asked the Tribunal to refer that question under section 66 (2) of the. Act, it had no jurisdiction to do so inasmuch as the appellants had not asked the Tribunal to refer the second question and, therefore, no question arose of the Tribunal refusing to raise that question or to submit it for the decision of the High Court. 1956 Messrs Mehta Parikh and Co. Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) स्रोतों।अपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तकोअपीलकरनेपर अपीलार्थीगणनेउनकेसमक्षतीनव्यक्तियोंकेशपथपत्रप्रस्तुतकिएताकियहदिखायाजासकेकिअपीलार्थीगणकोरु।20,000 , 28, 630 को1,000 रुपयेकेनोटोंमें सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट [ 1956 ] 1956 दिसंबर1945, रु।15,000 6 जनवरी1946 को1000 रुपयेकेनोटोंमें।8,500 1, 000 मेसर्समेहतारुपयेकेनोटोंमें(रुपयेबनातेहुए।8, 000) 8 जनवरी1946 को, इसप्रकारकुलरु।43,500 आयुक्तकीसुसंगतअवधिकेदौरान।-आयकरकेअपीलीयसहायक, मिशनरीनेबॉम्बेमेंनिहितबयानोंकोउक्तहलफनामोंकोस्वीकारनहींकियाऔरअपीलकोखारिजकरदिया। -आयकरअधिकारीकेआदेशकीपुष्टिकी। भगवतीजे। अपीलार्थीगणद्वाराइसकेसमक्षएकअपीलकीगईथी -आयकरअपीलीयन्यायाधिकरण।ट्रिब्यूनलकेबाद उनसभीसामग्रियोंकोध्यानमेंरखतेहुएजो अपीलीयसहायकआयोगकेसमक्षरखागया उक्तशपथपत्रोंसहित, यहरायथीकियदिउसेअपीलार्थीगणकेतर्ककोस्वीकारकरनाहै, तोयह इसकामतलबयहहोगाकिव्यावहारिकरूपसेउपरोक्तप्रत्येकभुगतान रु.1,000 अपीलार्थीगणद्वाराउच्चनामांकननोटोंमेंप्राप्तकियागयाथा, जोलगभगअसंभवथा।द. न्यायाधिकरणयहनहींकहसकाकिअपीलार्थीगणकेपासनहींथा उनकेसाथउच्चमूल्यकेनोटट।इसनेअपीलार्थीगणकीलेखाबहियोंकोस्वीकारकरलियालेकिनसोचाकि18 जनवरी1946 61 कोनकदशेषराशिमेंउच्चमूल्यकेनोटटनहींहोसकतेहैं।वहआगया यहनिष्कर्षनिकालतेहुएकिऐसाप्रतीतहोताहैकिअपीलार्थीगणनेनकदशेषराशिमेंउच्चमूल्यकेनोटटडालदिएथेऔरअन्यनोटटलेगएथे।इसनेअपीलस्वीकारकरली। 31 केवलनोटोंकेसंबंधमेंलांट्सकास्पष्टीकरणऔर निर्देशदियाकिसंदर्भवर्षकेलिएअपीलार्थीगणकेमूल्यांकनकोउसराशिसेकमकियाजाएऔर बाकीअपीलसेचूकगए। अपीलार्थीगणनेअधिनियमकीधारा66 (1) केतहतएकमामलाबतानेऔरकानूनकेपहलेप्रश्नकोउच्चन्यायालयकोउसकीरायकेलिएभेजनेकेलिएन्यायाधिकरणमेंआवेदनकिया।न्यायाधिकरणनेउक्तआवेदनकोखारिजकरदिया यहअभिनिर्धारितकरतेहुएकिइसकेआदेशसेकानूनकाकोईप्रश्नउत्पन्ननहींहुआ। इसकेबादअपीलार्थीगणनेउच्चन्यायालयमेंआवेदनकिया अधिनियमकीधारा66 (2) केतहतन्यायाधिकरणकोएकमामलाबतानेऔरआवेदनमेंदिएगएप्रश्नोंकोसंदर्भितकरनेकानिर्देशदेनेवालेआदेशकेलिए।उच्चन्यायालयनेन्यायाधिकरणकोएकमामलाबतानेऔरअधिनियमकीधारा66 (2)केतहतअपनेनिर्णयकेलिएइसकेऊपरनिर्धारितकानूनकेदोप्रश्नोंकोभेजनेकानिर्देशदिया।मामलाबतातेहुएऔर. . आर. कानूनकेउक्तप्रश्नोंकोउच्चएससीसर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्टकोसंदर्भितकरतेहुए 631 1956 न्यायालय, न्यायाधिकरणनेबतायाकिदूसरेप्रश्नकाकिसीभीस्तरपरन्यायाधिकरणकेसमक्षआग्रहनहींकियागयाथा मेसर्समेहता औरइसलिएइसेइसकेमूलरूपमेंनहींदेखागयाथा पारिखएंडकंपनी। आदेशदें। V. उच्चन्यायालयनेआयकरमेंपहलेनिर्दिष्टप्रश्नकाउत्तरसकारात्मकदिया, लेकिनदूसरेनिर्दिष्टप्रश्नकाउत्तरनहींदिया। इससंदर्भकीसुनवाईउच्चन्यायालयऔरदकमिश्नरबॉम्बेनेकी। सवालकरतेहैं।उच्चन्यायालयनेअभिनिर्धारितकियाकिन्यायाधिकरणकेसमक्षयहअभिनिर्धारितकरनेकेलिएसामग्रीहैकिरुपयेकीराशि।30,000 न्यायाधिकरणनेअघोषितस्रोतोंसेअपीलयाचिकाओंकीआयकाप्रतिनिधित्वकियाऔरकहाकिन्यायाधिकरणकानिष्कर्षउसकेसमक्षसामग्रीकेआधारपरतथ्यकानिष्कर्षथाऔरभलेहीयहन्यायाधिकरणद्वारानिष्कर्षनिकालागयाहो, लेकिननिष्कर्षन्यायाधिकरणकेसमक्षतथ्योंऔरसामग्रीपरआधारितथा।उच्चन्यायालयनेकहाकियहकहनाअसंभवहैकिन्यायाधिकरणद्वारापरिधिसेलियागयानिष्कर्ष भगवतीजे। आई। रुखएकअनुचितअनुमानयाएकमनमानाऔरमनमौजीअनुमानयाएकनिष्कर्षथा, जिसेकोईभीन्यायिकन्यायाधिकरणकभीनहींनिकालसकताथा।इसलिए, इसनेपहलेसंदर्भितप्रश्नकाउत्तरसकारात्मकरूपसेदिया।जहाँतकदूसरेसंदर्भितप्रश्नकासंबंधहै, उच्चन्यायालयनेअभिनिर्धारितकियाकिवहप्रश्नअपीलार्थीगणद्वारासंदर्भकेलिएअपनेआवेदनमेंनहींउठायागयाथा। अधिनियमकीधारा66 (1) औरइसलिए, न्यायाधिकरणकोकानूनकेकिसीविशेषप्रश्नपरकोईमामलाबतानेकेलिएकहनेकाकोईअधिकारक्षेत्रनहींथा; जहांअपीलार्थीगणनेस्वयंकभीभीन्यायाधिकरणसेइसतरहकेप्रश्नकोउच्चन्यायालयकोभेजनेकेलिएनहींकहाथाऔरभलेहीउसनेधारा66 (2) केतहतन्यायाधिकरणकोउक्तप्रश्नकोसंदर्भितकरनेकानिर्देशदियाथा, क्योंकिन्यायाधिकरणकोउक्तप्रश्नकोसंदर्भितकरनेकेलिएकहनेकाकोईअधिकारक्षेत्रनहींथा,इसलिएवहदूसरेप्रश्नकाउत्तरदेनेकेलिएस्वतंत्रनहींथाजोन्यायाधिकरणद्वाराअपनेइशारेपरउठायागयाथाऔरउसनेइसकाउत्तरदेनेसेइनकारकरदियाथा। इसअदालतमेंअपीलकरनेकीअनुमतिकेलिएअपीलार्थीगणद्वाराकीगईएकयाचिकापर, उच्चन्यायालयनेएकनिश्चितप्रमाणदियाकियहइसअदालतमेंअपीलकरनेकेलिएएकउपयुक्तमामलाथाऔरइसलिएयहअपील।23 शुरुआतमेंयहउल्लेखकियाजासकताहैकिआयकरअधिकारीद्वाराअपीलार्थीगणकाआकलनअधिनियमकीधारा(3) औरधारा26- एकेतहतकियागयाथा।द632 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट[1956] 1956 अपीलार्थीगणकीलेखाबहियांआयकरअधिकारीद्वारास्वीकारकीजातीथींऔरकेवलजांचकीजातीथी Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) affirmative but refused to answer the second question, being of the opinion that even though it had asked the Tribunal to refer that question under section 66 (2) of the. Act, it had no jurisdiction to do so inasmuch as the appellants had not asked the Tribunal to refer the second question and, therefore, no question arose of the Tribunal refusing to raise that question or to submit it for the decision of the High Court. 1956 Messrs Mehta Parikh and Co. The appellants are a partnership firm doing business in Mill Stores at Ahmedabad. Their head office is in Ahmedabad and their branch office is in Bombay. The Governor-General on 12th January 1946 promul-gated the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demo-netisation) Ordinance, 1946 and High Denomination Bank Notes ceased to be legal tender on the expiry of 12th day of January 1946. Pursuant to clause 6 of the Ordinance the appellants on 18th January 1946 encashed high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each of the face value of Rs. 61,000. This was done in the calendar year 1946 being the account year corres-ponding with assessment year 1947-48. v. The Commissioner of /11come-ta;r, Bombay Bhagu:ati J, During the assessment proceedings for the year 1947-48 the Income-tax Officer called upon the appel-lant to prove from whom and when the said high denomination notes of Rs. 61,000 were received by the appellants and also the bona fides of the previous owners thereof. After examining the entries in the books of account of the appellants and the ,position of the Cash Balances on various dates from 20th December 1945 to 18th January 1946 and the nature and extent of the receipts and payments during the relevant period, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that in order to imstain the contention of the appellants he would have to presume that there were 18 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each in the Cash B11.lance on 1st January 1946 and that all cash receipts after l'st January 1946 and before 13th January 1946 were received in currency notes of Rs. l,000 each, a presumption which he found impos-sible to make in the absence of any evidence. He, therefore, added the sum of Rs. 61,000 to the asses-sable income of the appellants from undisclosed sources. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the appellants produced before him affidavits of three persons to show that the appellants had received Rs. 20,000, in 1,000 rupees currency notes on 28th 1956 Messis Mehta Parikh and Co. v. The Co1ntn£sst'oncr of lnconie-tax, Bo1nbay Bhagu.>ati J, 630 December 1945, Rs. 15,000 in 1,000 rupees currency notes on 6th January 1946 and Rs. 8,500 in 1,000 rupees currency notes (making Rs. 8,000) on 8th January 1946, thus aggregating to Rs. 43,500 during the relevant period. The Appellate Assistant Com-missioner did not accept the statements contained in the said affidavits and dismissed the appeal and con-firmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. An appeal was taken by the appellants before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after taking into consideration all the materials which bad been placed before the Appellate Assistant Commis-sioner, including the said affidavits, was of the opinion that if it was to accept the appellants' contention, it would mean that practically every payment above Rs. 1,000 was received by the appellants in high de-nomination notes, which was almost impossible. The Tribunal could not say that the appellants had no high denomination notes with them. It accepted the books of account of the appellants but thought that the cash balance on 18th January 1946 could not have sixtyone high denomination notes. It came to the conclusion that the appellants appeared to have put in high denomination notes in the cash balance and taken the other notes away. It accepted the appel-lants' explanation only in regard to 31 notes and directed that the appellants' assessment for the year under reference be reduced by that amount and dis-missed the rest of the appeal. Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) इसअदालतमेंअपीलकरनेकीअनुमतिकेलिएअपीलार्थीगणद्वाराकीगईएकयाचिकापर, उच्चन्यायालयनेएकनिश्चितप्रमाणदियाकियहइसअदालतमेंअपीलकरनेकेलिएएकउपयुक्तमामलाथाऔरइसलिएयहअपील।23 शुरुआतमेंयहउल्लेखकियाजासकताहैकिआयकरअधिकारीद्वाराअपीलार्थीगणकाआकलनअधिनियमकीधारा(3) औरधारा26- एकेतहतकियागयाथा।द632 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट[1956] 1956 अपीलार्थीगणकीलेखाबहियांआयकरअधिकारीद्वारास्वीकारकीजातीथींऔरकेवलजांचकीजातीथी आय-करअधिकारीद्वारामेसर्समेहतानेकहाकिक्यासंबंधितपारिखएंडकंपनीकीतारीख, यानी12 जनवरी1946 को, अपीलार्थीगणकेपासआयुक्तकेपासरुपयेकेउच्चमूल्यके61 नोटटथे।1,000 आय-कर, प्रत्येक।20 दिसंबरबॉम्बे1945 से18 जनवरी1946 तककीनकदपुस्तिकाप्रविष्टियोंकोआयकरअधिकारीकेसमक्षरखागयाथाऔरउन्होंनेदिखायाकि28 तारीखको भगवतीजे। दिसंबर1945 रु.20,000 आनंदटेक्सटाइल्ससेप्राप्तहुएथे, औररुपयेकीशुरुआतीशेषराशिथी।18,395 2 जनवरी1946 को।रु.15,000 अपीलार्थीगणद्वारा7 जनवरी1946 कोसुशीकोटेक्सटाइल्ससेऔररु।8,500 8 जनवरी1946कोशाहमानेकलालनिहालचंदकीविधवामणिबेनसेउनकास्वागतकियागया।अपीलार्थीगणको2 जनवरी, 1946 से11जनवरी, 1946 तककईअन्यराशियाँभीप्राप्तहुईं, जोयातोरुपयेकेगुणकथीं।1,000 याखत्महोगएथे रु.1,000 औरइसप्रकारउच्चमूल्यकेनोटोंमेंअपीलार्थीगणकोभुगतानकरनेमेंसक्षमथे रु.1,000 .रुपयेकीनकदशेषराशिथी।69,891-2-6 अपीलार्थीगणकेसाथ12 जनवरी1946 को, जबउच्चमूल्यवर्गकेबैंकनोटट(विमुद्रीकरण) अध्यादेश1946 लागूकियागयाथाऔरयहअपीलार्थीगणकामामलाथाकिवेतबअपनीहिरासतमेंथे औरउनकेपास61 उच्चमूल्यकेनोटटथे। रु.1,000 , जिसेउन्होंने18 जनवरी1946 कोपूर्वीतटटकेमाध्यमसेभुनाया।अपीलार्थीगणनेआगेअपीलार्थीगणकोरुपयेकीराशिकेभुगतानकेसंबंधमेंमेसर्सश्रीआनंदटेक्सटाइल्सकेमहाप्रबंधककुथपाडीश्यामाशेट्टीकेअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तकेरूपमेंनियुक्तकरकेअपनेतर्ककासमर्थनकरनेकीमांगकी।20,000 रु. में।1,000 28 दिसंबर1945 कोमुद्रानोटट, मेसर्सशुसिकोटेक्सटाइल्सकेमालिकगोविंदप्रसादरामजीवननिवेतिया, एककेअपीलार्थीगणकोभुगतानकेसंबंधमेंरु. कीराशि।15,000 रु. में।1,000 6 जनवरी1946 कोमुद्रानोटटऔरशाहकीविधवाबाईमनीबेन मानेकलालनिहालचंद, ए. पी. पेलेंटोंकोरुपयेकीराशिकेभुगतानकेसंबंधमें।8,500 ( रु. 8, 000 रुपयेमेंहोगा।1, 000 केनोटट) 8 जनवरी1946 को।अपीलार्थीगणआगेएस. सी. आर. सर्वोच्चन्यायालयरिपोर्टदेनेकीस्थितिमेंनहींथे। 633 रुपयेकाविवरण।1,000 द्वाराप्राप्तमुद्रानोटट 1956 प्रासंगिकअवधिकेदौरान, क्योंकिवेनहींथे मेसर्समेहता अपनीनकदीमेंइनविवरणोंकोनोटटकरनेकीआदत पारिखएंडकंपनी। पुस्तकऔरइसलिएस्थितिपरभरोसाकियाक्योंकिइसेउनकीनकदपुस्तकमेंप्रविष्टियोंसेलिखाजासकताथा आयुक्त आयकर, इनहलफनामोंकेसाथयहदिखानेकेलिएकि12 जनवरी1946 कोउनकेपासनकदशेषराशिथी बॉम्बे सेरु.69,891-2-6 , 61 उच्चमूल्यकीमुद्रा भगवतीजे। रुपयेकेनोटट।1,000 प्रत्येक, जिसेउन्होंने18 जनवरी1946 कोपूर्वीतटटकेमाध्यमसेभुनाया।-आयकरअधिकारीऔरअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तदोनोंनेअपीलार्थीगणकेइससुझावकोयहकहतेहुएखारिजकरदियाकियहअसंभवथाकिअपीलार्थीगणकेपास12 जनवरी1946 कोरुपयेके61 उच्चमूल्यकेमुद्रानोटटथे।1,000 प्रत्येक, रुपयेकीउनकीनकदशेषराशिमेंशामिल।69,891-2-6 .गणना, जोउन्होंनेकीथी, उसमेंशामिलथे 2 जनवरी1946 सेऔरउसकेबादअपीलार्थीगणद्वाराप्राप्तसभीभुगतानोंकोध्यानमेंरखतेहुए, जोयातोरुपयेकेगुणकथे।1,000 यारुपयेसेअधिकथे।1,000 .रुपयेकीनकदशेषराशिथी।18,395-6-6 2 जनवरी1946 कोहाथमें, जिसमेंऐसे18 नोटटहोसकतेथे।इसकेबादअपीलार्थीगणकोकईकरोड़रुपयेसेअधिककीराशिप्राप्तहुई, जैसाकिउनकीनकदपुस्तिकामेंदिखायागयाहै।45,000 रुपयेकेगुणकोंमें।1,000 यारुपयेसेअधिककीराशि।1,000 , जोउसउच्चमूल्यके45 अन्यनोटोंकेलिएजिम्मेदारहोसकताहै, इसप्रकारयह63 करोड़रुपयेकाहोजाताहै। रुपयेकेउच्चमूल्यकेकिराएकेनोटट।1,000 औरये61 रुपयेकेनोटट।1,000 प्रत्येक, जिसेअपीलार्थीगणने18 जनवरी1946 कोभुनायाथा, 12 जनवरी1946 कोउनकीहिरासतमेंहोसकताथा।हालाँकि, आयकरअधिकारीऔरअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तदोनोंनेइसेअसंभवमानाक्योंकिवेइसपरविचारनहींकरसकतेथे। इससंभावनाकीसीमाकेभीतरकि2 जनवरी1946 केबादअपीलार्थीगणद्वाराप्राप्तप्रत्येकभुगतानरुपयेकेगुणकोंमें।1,000 यारुपयेसेअधिक।1,000 अपीलार्थीगणद्वारारुपयेकेउच्चमूल्यकेनोटटप्राप्तकिएगएथे।1,000 प्रत्येक।यहइसतरहकीअसंभवताकीउनकीकल्पनाकेकारणथाकिउन्होंनेअपीलार्थीगणकेतर्ककोनकारदिया।1 हालाँकि, यहध्यानदियाजानाचाहिएकिइन82 634 सेपरे सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट[1956] 1956 आय-करअधिकारीयाअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तद्वाराअपीलार्थीगणकीनकदपुस्तिकामेंप्रविष्टियोंकीआगेकोईजांचनहींकीगई।अपीलार्थीगणकीनकदपुस्तिकाथी मेसर्समेहता पारिखएंडकंपनी। Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) Section: ISSUES The appellants applied to the Tribunal for stating a case and referring the first question of law to the High Court for its opinion under section 66(1) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the said application holding that no question of law arose from its order. The appellants thereupon applied to the High Court under section 66(2) of the Act for an order directing the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions set out in the application. The High Court directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the two ques-tions of law set out hereinabove to it for its decision under section 66(2) of the Act. In stating the case and referring the said questions of law to the High Court, the Tribunal pointed out that the second ques- t9s6 tion was not urged' before the Tribunal at any stage and hence it was not dealt with by it in its original m~. Messrs Mehta Parikh and co. ~ The Commissioner of Income-tax, Income-tax, Bombay The reference was heard by the High Court and the The Commissioner High Court answered the first referred question in the of Income-tax, Income-tax, affirmative, but did not answer the second referred Bombay question, The High Court held that there were BhagwatiJ. materials before the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 30,000 represented the income of the appel-lants from undisclosed sources and that the finding of the Tribunal was a finding of fact based on materials before it and even if it was an inference drawn by the Tribunal, the inference was based on the facts and materials before the Tribunal. The Higl:i Court observed that it was impossible to say that the inference drawn by the Tribunal from the circum-stances was an unreasonable inference or an arbitrary and capricious inference or an inference, which no judicial tribunal could ever draw. It, therefore, answered the first referred question in the affirmative. As regards the second referred question, the High Court held that that question was not raised by the appellants in their application for reference under section 66(1) of the Act and, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to ask the Tribunal to state a case on a particular question of law; where the appellants them-selves had never asked the Tribunal to refer such a question to the High Court and that even though it had directed the Tribunal under section 66(2) to refer the said question, as it had no jurisdiction to ask the Tribunal to refer the said question, it was not open to it to answer the second question which had been raised by the Tribunal at its instance and refused to answer it. On a petition made by the appellants for leave to appeal to this court, the High Court granted a certi-ficate that this was a fit case for appeal to this court and hence this appeal. It may be mentioned at the outset that the assess- ment of the appellants by the Income-tax Officer was under section 23(3) and section 26-A of the Act. The 1956 Messrs Mehta Parikh and Co, v. The Commissioner o/ Inconie·tax, Bonibay Bhagwati J. 632 Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट[1956] 1956 आय-करअधिकारीयाअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तद्वाराअपीलार्थीगणकीनकदपुस्तिकामेंप्रविष्टियोंकीआगेकोईजांचनहींकीगई।अपीलार्थीगणकीनकदपुस्तिकाथी मेसर्समेहता पारिखएंडकंपनी। आयुक्तनेस्वीकारकरलियाऔरउसमेंप्रविष्टियोंकोचुनौतीनहींदीगई।उनप्रविष्टियोंकेसंबंधमेंकोईऔरदस्तावेजयावाउचरनहींमांगेगएथे, औरनहीकिसीभीपक्षद्वाराआवश्यकमानेजानेवालेतीनहलफनामोंकेप्रतिनिधियोंकीउपस्थितिथी।अपीलार्थीगणनेयहमानाकिइनपक्षोंकेहलफनामेपर्याप्तथेऔरनतोअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तऔरनहीआयकरअधिकारी, जोअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तकेसमक्षअपीलकीसुनवाईमेंमौजूदथे, नेअपनेहलफनामोंमेंउनकेद्वारादिएगएबयानोंकेसंदर्भमेंउनकीजिरहकरनेकेलिएउन्हेंबुलानाआवश्यकसमझा।इनसंदर्भोंकेतहतराजस्वकेलिएनकदपुस्तकप्रविष्टियोंकीशुद्धतायाउनप्रतिनिधियोंद्वाराअपनेहलफनामोंमेंदिएगएबयानोंकोचुनौतीदेनेकाअधिकारनहींथा। -आयकर, बॉम्बे भगवतीजे। यहस्थितिहोनेकेकारण, जैसाकि12 जनवरी, 1946 कोबनीथी, स्थितिस्पष्टहोनीचाहिएथी नकदबहीमेंउनप्रविष्टियोंऔरअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तकेसमक्षदायरहलफनामोंकोध्यानमेंरखतेहुए, उन्हेंउनकेअंकितमूल्यपरलेतेहुए।नकदबहीमेंप्रविष्टियोंसेपताचलताहैकि2 जनवरी1946 को18 परउच्चमूल्यकेनोटोंकीसंख्याकोलेतेहुए, 2 जनवरी1946 केबादऔर12 जनवरी1946 तकअपीलार्थीगणकीहिरासतयाकब्जेमेंउसउच्चमूल्यके49 औरनोटटआए, जिससेकुलमिलाकरऐसे67 नोटटबने, जिनमेंसे61 ऐसेनोटोंकोअपीलार्थीगणद्वारा18 जनवरी1946 कोपूर्वीतटटकेमाध्यमसेभुनायाजासकताथा।आयकरअधिकारीयाअपीलीयसहायकआयुक्तद्वाराकीगईप्रकृतिकीकेवलगणना, बिनाकिसीऔरजांचके, अपीलार्थीगणद्वाराउठाएगएरुखकोहटानेकेलिएपर्याप्तनहींथी, जोकिनकदपुस्तिकामेंप्रविष्टियोंऔरअपीलार्थीगणद्वाराअपीलीयसहायककेसमक्षरखेगएहलफनामोंद्वारासमर्थितथा। '।आयुक्त न्यायाधिकरणभीइसीत्रुटिमेंपड़गया। यहएस. सी. आर. सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्टप्रस्तुतकरसकताहै। 635 अपीलार्थीकेशामिलहोनेकीसंभावनानकारात्मकनहींहै 1956 इनउच्चडेनोकीएकबड़ीसंख्याकाअधिकार मेसर्समेहता खननमुद्रानोटट।हालांकि, यहमानाजाताहैकि पारिखएंडकंपनी। किअपीलार्थीगणकेलिएयहअसंभवथाकिउनकेहाथोंमेंनकदशेषराशिमेंऐसे61 नोटटआयुक्तकेपास12 जनवरी, 1946 -कोथेऔरफिरउन्होंनेएकनियमलागूकिया आयकर, } बॉम्बे ऐसे61 नोटोंमेंसे31 कोसंभावनाकीसीमाकेभीतरमानाजाताहै, जिसमें30 ऐसेनोटटशामिलनहींहैं। भगवतीजे। अपीलार्थीगणकेस्पष्टीकरणद्वाराकवरकियागया।यहविशुद्धअनुमानथाऔरसाक्ष्यमेंइसकाकोईआधारनहींथा, जोकार्यवाहीकेरिकॉर्डमेंथा। उच्चन्यायालयनेजनजातिकेइसनिष्कर्षपरविचारकिया केवलतथ्यकीखोजकेरूपमेंनल।तथ्यकेऐसेसभीनिष्कर्षोंकेसंबंधमेंस्थिति, किक्याउनपरअपीलमेंसवालउठायाजासकताहै, इसप्रकारहाउसऑफलॉर्ड्सद्वाराकैमरूनबनाममेंनिर्धारितकियागयाहै।प्रेन्डरगास्टट(करनिरीक्षक) (1): " आयुक्तोंद्वाराबताएगएतथ्योंकेनिष्कर्षकानूनकेमामलेहैंऔरअपीलपरउनसेपूछताछकीजासकतीहै।यहीटिप्पणीदस्तावेजोंकेनिर्माणकेबारेमेंभीसचहै।यदिआयुक्तसाक्ष्यबतातेहैंऔरउससाक्ष्यपरविश्वासकरतेहैंकिकुछपरिणामआतेहैं, तोन्यायालयकेलिएइसतरहकीधारणासेभिन्नहोनेकाविकल्पखुलाहै। इसीप्रभावकेलिएबॉमफोर्डबनाममेंहाउसऑफलॉर्ड्सकीटिप्पणियाँहैं।ओसबोर्न(एच. एम. करनिरीक्षक) (1): 1 " इसमेंकोईसंदेहनहींहैकिऐसेकईमामलेहैंजिनमेंमिशनरीपहलेहीसाबितयास्वीकारकरचुकेहैं उनसेतथ्योंकीएकश्रृंखला, आगेकेनिष्कर्षनिकालसकतीहैजोस्वयंशुद्धतथ्यकेनिष्कर्षहैं।लेकिनऐसेमामलोंमेंकानूनकेदृष्टिकोणसेनिर्धारणयहहैकिसाबितयास्वीकारकिएगएतथ्यप्रदानकरतेहैं आयुक्तोंकेनिष्कर्षोंकासमर्थनकरनेकेलिएसाक्ष्य।इसप्रश्नपरहाउसऑफलॉर्ड्सकीनवीनतमघोषणाएडवर्ड्स(कर—निरीक्षक) v मेंपाईजातीहै।बेयरस्टोऔरएकऔर(3)।पृष्ठ586 परविस्काउंटटसाइमंड्सकाअवलोकनकियागयाः " क्योंकियहसार्वभौमिकरूपसेस्वीकारकियाजाताहैकि, हालांकियह(1) [1940] 8 आई. टी. आर. है।(पूरक) 75,81। ( 2 ) [ 1942 ] 10 आईटीआर।(पूरक) 27,34।( 3 ) [ 1955 ] 28 आई. टी. आर. 579 636 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट [ 1956 ] 1956 तथ्यकीएकशुद्धखोज, इसेआधारपरअलगरखाजासकताहै जिन्हेंविभिन्नतरीकोंसेकहागयाहैलेकिनहैं, मैं मेसर्समेहतासोचतेहैं, यहकहकरउचितरूपसेसंक्षेपितकियागयाहैकिअदालत उसपाठ्यक्रमकोलेनाचाहिएयदिऐसाप्रतीतहोताहैकिकॉम .वाई आयुक्तोंनेबिनाकिसीसाक्ष्ययाआय-करकेआधारपरकार्रवाईकीहै, जोउनतथ्योंकादृष्टिकोणहैजोउचितरूपसेनहींहोसकतेहैं। "।बॉम्बेनेमनोरंजनकिया औरलॉर्डरैडक्लिफनेखुदकोव्यक्तकिया भगवतीजे। 592:पृष्ठ " यदिमामलेमेंकुछऐसाहैजोप्रत्यक्षरूपसेखराबकानूनहैऔरजोनिर्धारणपरनिर्भरकरताहै, तोयहस्पष्टरूपसेकानूनकेदृष्टिकोणसेगलतहै।लेकिन, इसतरहकीकिसीभीगलतधारणाकेबिना, यहहोसकताहै किपाएगएतथ्यऐसेहैंकिकोईभीव्यक्तिकार्यनहींकररहाहै न्यायिकऔरउचितरूपसेसंबंधितकेरूपमेंनिर्देशदियागया कानूनएपीकेतहतनिर्धारणपरआसकताथा Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) On a petition made by the appellants for leave to appeal to this court, the High Court granted a certi-ficate that this was a fit case for appeal to this court and hence this appeal. It may be mentioned at the outset that the assess- ment of the appellants by the Income-tax Officer was under section 23(3) and section 26-A of the Act. The 1956 Messrs Mehta Parikh and Co, v. The Commissioner o/ Inconie·tax, Bonibay Bhagwati J. 632 books of account of the appellants were accepted by the Income-tax Officer and the only scrutiny made by the Income-tax Officer was whether at the relevant date, i.e. on 12th January 1946, the appellants had in their cash 61 notes of high denomination of Rs. 1,000 each. The cash book entries from 20th December 1945 up to 18th January 1946 were put in before the Income-tax Officer and they showed that on 28th December 1945 Rs. 20,000 were received from the Anand Textiles, and there was an opening balance of Rs. 18,395 on 2nd January 1946. Rs. 15,000 were re-ceived by the appellants on 7th January 1946 from the Sushico Textiles and Rs. 8,500 were received by them on 8th January 1946 from Maniben, widow of Shah Maneklal Nihalchand. Various other sums were also received by the appellants from 2nd January 1946 up to and inclusive of 11th January 1946, which were either multiples of Rs. 1,000 or were over Rs. 1,000 and were thus capable of having been paid to the appellants in high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000. There was a cash balance of Rs. 69,891-2-6 with the appellants on 12th January 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisa tiou) Ordinance 1946 was promulgated and it was the case of the appellants that they had then in their custody and possession 61 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000, which they encashed through the Eastern Bank on 18th January 1946. The appellants further sought to support their contention by procuring be-fore the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the affi-davits of Kuthpady Shyama Shetty, Geqeral Manager of Messrs Shree Anand Textiles, in regard to payment to the appellants of a sum of Rs. 20,000 in Rs. 1,000 currency notes on 28th December 1945, Govindprasad Ramjivan Nivetia, proprietor of Messrs Shusiko Tex-tiles, in regard to payment to the appellants of a sum of Rs. 15,000 in Rs. 1,000 currency notes on 6th January 1946 and Bai Maniben, widow of Shah Maneklal Nihalchand, in r,;gard to payment to the ap-pellants of a sum of Rs. 8,500 (Rs. 8,000 thereout be-ing in Rs. 1,000 currency notes) on 8th January 1946. The appellants were not in a position to give further 633 particulars of Rs. 1,000 currency notes received by them during the relevant period, as they were not in the habit of noting these particulars in their cash book and therefore relied upon the position as it could be spelt out of the entries in their cash book coupled with these affidavits in order to show that on 12th January 1946 they had in their cash balance of Rs. 69,891-2-6, the 61 high denomination currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each, which they en cashed on 18th January 1946 through the Eastern Bank. Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) .वाई आयुक्तोंनेबिनाकिसीसाक्ष्ययाआय-करकेआधारपरकार्रवाईकीहै, जोउनतथ्योंकादृष्टिकोणहैजोउचितरूपसेनहींहोसकतेहैं। "।बॉम्बेनेमनोरंजनकिया औरलॉर्डरैडक्लिफनेखुदकोव्यक्तकिया भगवतीजे। 592:पृष्ठ " यदिमामलेमेंकुछऐसाहैजोप्रत्यक्षरूपसेखराबकानूनहैऔरजोनिर्धारणपरनिर्भरकरताहै, तोयहस्पष्टरूपसेकानूनकेदृष्टिकोणसेगलतहै।लेकिन, इसतरहकीकिसीभीगलतधारणाकेबिना, यहहोसकताहै किपाएगएतथ्यऐसेहैंकिकोईभीव्यक्तिकार्यनहींकररहाहै न्यायिकऔरउचितरूपसेसंबंधितकेरूपमेंनिर्देशदियागया कानूनएपीकेतहतनिर्धारणपरआसकताथा पीलकरें।उनपरिस्थितियोंमेंभीअदालतको "।हस्तक्षेपकरें इसलिए, यहइसप्रकारहैकिसाबितयास्वीकारकिएगएतथ्यआगेकेनिष्कर्षोंकासमर्थनकरनेकेलिएसबूतप्रदानकरसकतेहैं।उनसेकौनसेनिष्कर्षनिकालेजासकतेहैं स्वयंतथ्यऔरऐसेनिष्कर्षोंकेनिष्कर्षहोतेहैं साबितयास्वीकारकिएगएतथ्योंसेमामलेहोसकतेहैं कानून।अदालतकोहस्तक्षेपकरनेकाअधिकारहोगायदिवह ऐसाप्रतीतहोताहैकितथ्यखोजनेवालेप्राधिकारीनेबिनाकिसीसाक्ष्यकेयातथ्योंकेदृष्टिकोणसेकार्रवाईकीहै, जिनपरउचितरूपसेविचारनहींकियाजासकताहैयापाएगएतथ्यऐसेहैंकिकोईभीव्यक्तिसंबंधितकानूनकेबारेमेंन्यायिकऔरउचितरूपसेनिर्देशनहींदेताहै। उच्चन्यायालयनेइसस्थितिकोप्रभावीरूपसेमान्यतादी लेकिनसहीसिद्धांतोंकोलागूकरनेमेंगलतहोगया वर्तमानमामलेमेंतथ्यकेऐसेनिष्कर्षोंमेंहस्तक्षेप।प्रयासजोउच्चद्वाराकियागयाथा न्यायाधिकरणकेदिमागकीजाँचकरनेकेलिएअदालत गोविंदप्रसादरामजीवनकेहलफनामेकोखारिजकरनेकीमांग रुपयेकेभुगतानकेसंबंधमेंनिवेतिया।15,000 को अपीलार्थीगणरुपयेके15 मुद्रानोटोंमें।1,000 प्रत्येक 6 जनवरी1946 कोऔरइसप्रकारकुलआयमेंकमीआई। गेटटराशिरु।43,500 रु. तक।28,500 रुपयेकाआंकड़ा।31,000 न्यायाधिकरणद्वारापहुँचागया . . आर. वास्तवमेंबहुतदूरकीबातथीऔरएससीसर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्टकीशर्तोंकेविपरीतथी 637 स्वयंन्यायाधिकरणकाआदेश, न्यायाधिकरणकेपासनहींहै 1956 किसीभीसंकेतकोदेखतेहुए, जोकुछभी, पीछेक्याथा मेसर्समेहता उसकेदिमागमेंजबयहआंकड़ातयकियागयारु।31,000 . पारिखएंडकंपनी। वास्तवमेंबोलतेहुएन्यायाधिकरणनेसंकेतनहींदियाथा .वी इसमेंकौनसीसामग्रीथीजोरु।30,000 आयुक्तकोगुप्तलाभयाआयकरकेअघोषितलाभकेरूपमेंमानाजानाचाहिए, दबॉम्बे स्रोतऔरउसकेद्वारापारितआदेशखराबथा।अपीलार्थीगणनेएकउचितस्पष्टीकरणदियाथा भगवतीजे। रुपयेकेअंकितमूल्यकेउच्चमूल्यकेनोटटरखनेकेलिए।61,000 औरइसेआंशिकरूपसेस्वीकारकरनेऔररुपयेकीराशिकेसंबंधमेंइसेत्यागनेकाकोईऔचित्यनहींथा।30,000 .यहमामलाचुनीलालटिकमचंदकोलकंपनीलिमिटेडबनामपटटनाउच्चन्यायालयकेसमक्षमामलेकेअनुरूपथा।केआयुक्त -आयकर, बिहारऔरउड़ीसा(1) औरइसीतरहअपीलार्थीगणकेपक्षमेंनिर्णयलियाजानाचाहिएथा। ऊपरबताएगएकारणोंसे, हमारामाननाहैकिउच्चन्यायालयनेपहलेनिर्दिष्टप्रश्नकासकारात्मकउत्तरदेनेमेंगलतीकीथी।यह. इसेनकारात्मकमेंजवाबदेनाचाहिएथाऔरयहमानाजानाचाहिएथाकिरुपयेकेमूल्यांकनकोसहीठहरानेकेलिएकोईसामग्रीनहींथी।30,000 रु. कीराशिमेंसे।61,000 , आय-करऔरअतिरिक्तलाभकरऔरउच्चमूल्यकेनोटोंकेमूल्यकाप्रतिनिधित्वकरनेवालेउपयुक्तकरउद्देश्योंकेलिएजिन्हें18 जनवरी, 1946 कोभुनायागयाथा। उपरोक्तकोध्यानमेंरखतेहुएहमारेलिएइसप्रश्नमेंजानाआवश्यकनहींहैकिक्याउच्चन्यायालयको दूसरेसंदर्भितप्रश्नकाभीउत्तरदियाहै।पहलेसंदर्भितप्रश्नकाउत्तरनकारात्मकहोनेकेकारण, अतिरिक्तलाभकरऔरव्यावसायिकलाभकरकाआधारहीगायबहोजाताहैऔरदूसरासंदर्भितप्रश्नविशुद्धरूपसेअकादमिकहोजाताहै।परिणामयहहैकिअपीलकीअनुमतिदीजातीहैऔरपहलेनिर्दिष्टप्रश्नकाउत्तरमेंदियाजाताहै -नकारात्मक।अपीलार्थीगणकाखर्चयहांकेसाथसाथउच्चन्यायालयमेंभीहोगा। जे. वेंकटटरामाअय्यर- मैंअभी-अभीप्रस्तावितआदेशसेसहमतहूँ।लेकिनमैंअपनेनिर्णयको(1) [1955] 27 आई. टी. आर. 602 पररखनापसंदकरताहूं। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट[1956] 1956 यहआधारहैकिन्यायाधिकरणकानिष्कर्षहैकिरुपयेकेमूल्यकेउच्चमूल्यकेनोटट।30,000 प्रतिनिधिमेसर्समेहतानेभेजाकिअपीलार्थीकाछिपाहुआलाभपारिखएंडकंपनीकिसीभीसाक्ष्यद्वारासमर्थितनहींहै, औरइसकेपरिणामस्वरूप, आयुक्तकानूनकेदृष्टिकोणसेगलतहैऔरअलगकिएजानेकेलिएउत्तरदायीहै।आय-करका, अभिलेखपरसाक्ष्यपूरीतरहसेपुनःप्रस्तुतकियागयाहै। बॉम्बेकोअभीदिएगएफैसलेमेंदेखागयाहै, औरफिरसेउसीआधारकोपारकरनेकीकोईआवश्यकतानहींहै।रखनेकेलिए भगवतीजे। इसमामलेमें, अपीलार्थीकेखातोंकोन्यायाधिकरणद्वारावास्तविककेरूपमेंस्वीकारकियागयाहै, औरइसमेंदिखाएगएनकदशेषकोध्यानमेंरखतेहुएयहकहनाअसंभवहैकिविचाराधीननोटोंकोउसमेंशामिलनहींकियाजासकताथा।ट्रिब्यूनलकामाननाहैकिइसबातकीसंभावनानहींहैकिइतनेसारेउच्चमूल्यकेनोटटएकहिस्सेकेरूपमेंरखेगएहोंगे इतनीबड़ीसंख्यामेंदिनोंकेलिएहाथपरनकदी।इसमेंकोईसंदेहनहींहैकियहअत्यधिकसंदिग्धहै, लेकिनन्यायाधिकरणकानिर्णयसंदेहपरनहींबल्किसंदेहपरआधारितहोनाचाहिए। Case: MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [[1956] 1 S.C.R. 626] (1956) them during the relevant period, as they were not in the habit of noting these particulars in their cash book and therefore relied upon the position as it could be spelt out of the entries in their cash book coupled with these affidavits in order to show that on 12th January 1946 they had in their cash balance of Rs. 69,891-2-6, the 61 high denomination currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each, which they en cashed on 18th January 1946 through the Eastern Bank. Both the Inrome-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner discounted this suggestion of the appellants by holding that it was impossible that the appellants had on hand on 12th January 1946, the 61 high denomination currency notes of Rs. I ,000 each, included in their cash balance of Rs. 69,891-2-6. The calculations, which they made involved taking into account all payments received by the appellants from and after 2nd January 1946, which were either multiples of Rs. 1,000 or were over Rs.1,000. There was a cash balance of Rs. 18,395-6-6 on hand on 2nd January 1946, which could have accounted for 18 such notes. The appellants received thereafter as shown in their cash book several sums of monies aggregating to over Rs. 45,000 in multiples of Rs. 1,000 or sums over Rs. 1,000, which could account for 45 other notes of that high denomination, thus making up 63 cur-rency notes of the high denomination of Rs. 1,000 and these 61 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each, which the appellants encashed on 18th January 1946 could as well have been in their custody on 12th January 1946. This was, however, considered impossible by both the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assist-ant Commissioner as they could not consider it within the bounds of possibility that each and every payment received by the appellants after 2nd Janu-ary 1946 in multiples of Rs. 1,000 or over Rs. 1,000 was received by the appellants in high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each. It was by reason of their visualisation of such .an impossibility that they nega-tived the appellants' contention. ' It has to be noted, however, that beyond these 82 1956 Messrs Mehla Parikh and Co. v. Tho Commissioner of Income.ta~-. Bombay Bhagu•atl J, 634 calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made 1956 Messrs Mehta by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Parikh and co. Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the v. appellants. The cash book of the appellants was The Commissioner accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. of Income.tax, No further documents or vouchers in relation to those Bombay entries were called for, nor was the presence of the BhagwatiJ. deponents of the three affidavits consi