HOMI JEHANGIR GHEESTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 24/1958Supreme Court[1961] 1 S.C.R. 77022 September 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Homi Jehangir Gheesta, was assessed to income tax for the assessment year 1946-47 on a sum of Rs. 87,500, treated as income from an undisclosed source. The appellant had encashed high denomination currency notes of this value. He provided three discrepant statements regarding the origin of the funds: initially claiming it was a legacy from his mother, then stating his uncle Phirozeshaw handed it over before his death, and later through an affidavit suggesting the executor Kaikhusroo handed it over after Phirozeshaw's death. The Income-tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Appellate Tribunal all rejected his explanations, finding the true nature of the receipt undisclosed. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for a reference to the High Court, holding no question of law arose. The High Court summarily dismissed the appellant's subsequent application under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The appeal to the Supreme Court was against this High Court order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that no question of law arose from the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and consequently, the High Court was correct in summarily dismissing the application under Section 66(2). The Court reasoned that the Tribunal had considered the material facts and evidence, both for and against the assessee, and its conclusion was not vitiated by irrelevant considerations or prejudice. The discrepancies in the assessee's statements regarding the origin of the Rs. 87,500 were significant and led to a proper inference that the receipt was income from an undisclosed source. The Court clarified that the decisions in Dhirajlal Girdharilal and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait did not require a microscopic examination of the Tribunal's order. While mere rejection of an explanation does not always establish income, if the circumstances of rejection lead to the only proper inference that the receipt is income, assessing authorities are entitled to draw such an inference. This inference is one of fact, not law. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a question of law arises from the order of the Appellate Tribunal when the assessee's explanation for a large cash receipt is rejected due to material discrepancies and contradictions, and the amount is treated as income from an undisclosed source. 2. Whether the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the application under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for a reference to the High Court. Assessee's Arguments: The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order was vitiated by prejudice and irrelevant considerations, citing specific observations about his educational pursuits and the failure to consider school certificates. He argued that the Tribunal should not have examined the order sentence by sentence to find minor lapses but should have considered the order as a whole to determine if material facts and evidence were properly considered. He also argued that the Department had not proven the amount was income by direct evidence. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their position, as upheld by the lower authorities, was that the appellant's inconsistent explanations for the Rs. 87,500 receipt justified treating it as income from an undisclosed source.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(2),Section 23(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Seplember a~ 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS HOMI JEHANGIR GHEESTA v. [1961] THE CO~fMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY (S. K. DAs, M. HmAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) lllcome tax-Assessment-Income from undisclosed source- Refusal by Appellate Tribunal lo state a case--Sumrnary refusol by High Court lo direct a reference-Q11estion of law, when can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (XI of r922), s. 66(2).

The appellant encashed high denomination currency notes d1 the value of Rs. 87,500 and was called upon by the Income- tax Officer to submit a return for the relevant year. The appel- lant made three statements, discrepant in material particulars, at different stages as to h'tl"w he received the amount.

The Income-tax Officer held that the true nature of the receipt had not been disclosed, treated it as income from an undisclosed source and assessed him accordingly. The Assistant Commis- sioner of Income-tax upheld that order on appeal. On a further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal reviewed the facts, considered the discrepancies in the appellant's case and affirmed the order of assessment. An application for a reference to the Hi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 66(2)

All 55 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →