THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SHRI ARUN AGARWAL | BharatTax

Loading judgment…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SHRI ARUN AGARWAL | BharatTax

Dinesh Kumar. 3. This appeal has been preferred mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that deceased was a house wife and a false claim of income has been made on the basis of bogus income tax return being filed on her behalf. Not, a chit of paper has been filed in support of the averment that the deceased was having a personal income from the wholesale business of cloth claimed to be carrying out from her residence, although it had been admitted by her husband (PW-1) that documents can be filed in proof of her business like GST, Bank Accounts etc. 4. Secondly, it was a case of head-on-collision and therefore, on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it was incumbent on part of the learned Tribunal to have adjudicated the issue regarding the contributory negligence of the driver of the Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire Car in which the occupants were travelling at the relevant time of accident. 5. With regard to the grounds of contributory negligence as stated, it is apparent that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus and charge- sheet was also submitted against him. The witnesses have consistently stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the bus. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I do not find any infirmity in finding returned by the learned Tribunal that the accident was the outcome of the rash driving by the driver of the bus. 6. It has also been argued that as per the newspaper report regarding the accident, it was not Dinesh Kumar, but one Manjar Ansari, who was driving the said vehicle. However, no evidence has been led either by oral or documentary in this regard, therefore, the plea that Dinesh Kumar was not driving the said vehicle at the time of accident, is not tenable. 7. On the point of income of the deceased, it is true that C.W.1, the husband of the deceased has stated in paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the cross- examination that the deceased was having an independent business of cloth under the name of J.J. Enterprises, Dhanbad and he can file the documents regarding it including Central Sales Tax and State Sales Tax. It was also deposed by him that she had a Bank Account and the documents regarding it, can be also filed. It has further been stated by him that J.J. Enterprises was

not located in any market, but was functioning from the house itself. 8. The matter for consideration is whether learned Tribunal fell in error in accepting the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of her Income Tax Return (Exhibit 9–11) without any other documentary evidence in support of her income from occupation. 9. Law is settled that income tax returns are prima facie evidence of income, unless it is rebutted by contrary evidence. It has been held in Malarvizhi vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228 that determination of income must proceed on the basis of income tax returns, when available, being a statutory document. Here in the present case, there is no contrary evidence with regard to income, therefore, there is no infirmity in the income assessment on the basis of ITR. 10. It is also argued by learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that so far as the permit part is concerned, learned Tribunal has recorded finding that the vehicle was plying without a valid permit on the basis of the deposition of the owner of the vehicle as stated by D.W. 1. Further, the challan which has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit Y/1, goes to show that the challan was deposited on the very same day after the accident which was post hoc the accident. 11. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the owner of the vehicle that there were a valid driving licence and permit and was duly insured with The New India Assurance Company. Permit was renewed vide Online MIS Renewal Certificate (Exhibit Y/1) on 03.11.2018 at 9.24 A.M., whereas the accident as per the FIR (Exhibit 1) took place at 9.30 A.M. 12. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to right of recovery granted to the Insurance Company cannot be revisited in the present appeal, as no appeal or cross-objection has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle against this finding. 13. For the reasons stated above, the Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. 14. The entire compensation awarded has been deposited in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 03.12.2024 out of which 35% has been disbursed to the claimants, as per the submission on behalf of