Case: Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General Millsltd. &amp; Anr Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi

is not the same thing as deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. At least in the background of the law as it stood at the relevant time, that was the position. There have been some changes subsequently which we have not noticed for the present purposeIn Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 , this court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was a fact-finding tribunal and if it arrived at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it, the court could not interfere. It was necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findings reached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there were any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. In this case, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the assessee had admitted the additions as its income when faced with non-disclosure in assessment proceedings. The High Court accused the Tribunal of not considering the time when the assessee admitted the additions. 7. We find that it was duly considered by the Tribunal. We find that the assessee, admitted that these were the incomes of the assessee but that was not an admission that there was deliberate concealment. From agreeing to additions, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be hundred and one reasons for such admission, i.e., when the assessee realises the true position, it does not dispute certain disallowances but that does not absolve the Revenue from proving the mens rea of a quasicriminal offence. In Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 , the court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performed a judicial function under the Income-tax Act and it was invested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its findings on all contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. The Tribunal was undoubtedly competent to disagree with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ; but in proceeding to do so, it had to act judicially, i.e., to consider all the evidence in favour of and against the, assessee. An order recorded on a review of only a part of the evidence and ignoring the remaining evidence could not be regarded as conclusively determinative of the question of fact raised before the Tribunal. It is for the income-tax authority to prove that a particular receipt is taxable if, however, the receipt is accepted and a certain amount is accepted as taxable, it could be added but it was not accepted by the assessee, however, that it had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any income. 8. In our opinion, the Tribunal has properly considered all the evidence in the instant case. In Rameshwar Prasad Bagla v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 421 , this court again reiterated that it was for the Tribunal to decide questions of fact, and the High Court in a reference under section 66 of the Act, as at that time, could not go behind the Tribunals findings of fact. The High Court could only lay down the law applicable to the facts found by the Tribunal. The High Court in a reference under section 66 of the Act, as at that time, could, however, go into the question as to whether the conclusion of the Tribunal on a question of fact was based upon relevant evidence. If the High Court found that there was no such evidence to support the finding of fact by the Tribunal, those circumstances would give rise to a question of law and could be agitated in a reference. Here, in the instant case, that is not the position. This court again reiterated that it was also well-established that when a Tribunal acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material which was partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence, then, in such a situation, an issue of law arose and the finding of the Tribunal could be interfered with. That is not the position here. In the instant case, it is not said that the Tribunal had acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material which was partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions. The High Court was wrong in saying that proper weight had not been given to all the evidence and admissions made by the assessee. The High Court further observed that the time of admission was not noted by the Tribunal and this fact had not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. That is also not correct. The Income-tax Officer had made additions during the assessment proceedings. In any event that would be appreciation of evidence in a certain way, unless in such misappreciation which amounted to non-appreciation, no question of law would arise. Non-appreciation may give rise to a question of law but not mere misappreciation, even if there be any, from a certain angle. Change of perspective in viewing a thing does not transform a question of fact into a question of lawIn the instant case, we are of the opinion that in preferring one view to another view of factual appreciation, the High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under the income-tax reference in answering the question of law

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 70, 000In appeal, thex Appellate Tribunal was of the view that not much turned upon the fact that the assessee agreed to the additions of the amounts in the assessment. So far as the reliance placed upon Kanodias statement by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was concerned, it had no relevance or bearing to the facts of the assessment year in question. He was not the contractor employed by the assessee in the year of account. He came in only a later year. One Avinash Chand was the contractor in the year in question. He had specifically stated that be was responsible for shortages. He had also admitted that there was staff maintained by the mill at the centre at which he was the loading contractor. In fact, he had gone to the extent of stating as to what staff was maintained in that centre; there was a man in charge of the centre, a weighment clerk, a cane clerk and three to four chowkidars. He had also stated that they were not his employees. According to the Tribunal, in these circumstances, the assessee could very well have argued against the addition of the two sums, namely, Rs. 67, 500 and Rs. 21, 700. But the assessee, as we have noted, had agreed to the amounts being included. The Tribunal was of the view that the mere fact that the amounts were agreed to be taken into account by the assessee did not ipso facto indicate any criminality in its action to conceal any portion of the income. The Tribunal found that so far as Rs. 48, 500 was concerned in the inflation in the price of sugarcane, the previous history was against the assessee. It had agreed to similar additions in the earlier years6 and, the Tribunal noted. From the above facts, it was seen that the penalty was warranted in a similar amount for this year also, the Tribunal noted. Taking into consideration the fact that the sum involved against this year was Rs. 48, 500, the Tribunal considered that a smaller penalty was imposable. The Tribunal accordingly imposed a total penalty of Rs. 5, 000The High Court reiterated that the onus of proving concealment was on the Revenue because the proceedings for penalty were penal in character. In that view of the matter, the High Court was of the opinion that so far as Rs. 48, 500 was concerned, it was not proved that there was any deliberate concealment. So far as the other two amounts of Rs. 67, 500 and Rs. 21, 700 were concerned, it was contended that the High Court noted the history of the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the circumstances of the case and the High Court was of the view that the Tribunal had not at all considered thet the value of the shortage was only Rs. 26, 429. According to the High Court, the Tribunal had brushed aside the fact that the assessee had agreed to the addition of this amount. According to the High Court, the Tribunal had not set aside the finding of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that the assessee surrendered the amount of Rs. 67, 500 when it was faced with facts which clearly established concealment. The assessee, according to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, had surrendered the amount only after thex Officer had conclusive evidence in his possession that the amount represented its income. In other words, what the High Court sought to state was that acceptance by the assessee was material to give proper weight to judge the criminality of the action which according to the High Court was not given. The High Court highlighted that, so far as Rs. 67, 500 was concerned, only on being faced with facts from which there could possibly be no escape from the inference that the amount represented his income, had the assessee agreed to its inclusion. The High Court was of the view that the Tribunal was in error in brushing aside consideration of these aspects while considering the question of concealmentIn respect of the addition of Rs. 21, 700, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had relied upon the statement of Kedar Nath Kanodia as also the fact that the assessee admitted that this item represented its income. The Tribunal did not place reliance upon the statement of Kedar Nath Kanodia. It, however, omitted to take into account the fact that the assessee had admitted that these items represented its income. The High Court was of the view that such admissions were made by the assessee but the Tribunal had not properly appreciated that aspect. Therefore, in respect of these two items, the High Court was of the view that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee was not guilty of any concealment. So far as question No. 2 was concerned which dealt with Rs. 48, 500, the High Court confined itself to the disallowance in respect of purchase of cane. In so far as this question was answered in favour of the assessee and there is no challenge by the Revenue, it is not material any more. The High Court came to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the concealment of Rs. 48, 500 was not justified in law.It was urged before us that as the second question which was in general form has been answered in favour of the assessee, the third question as reframed could not have been answered otherwise.We are unable to accept this contention. As evident from the discussion by the High Court, the High Court confined itself to the second question with regard to disallowance in respect of purchase of cane that amounted to Rs. 48, 500. So, therefore, it cannot be said that in view of the answer given to the second question, the third question was no longer open. The second question was confined to only Rs. 48, 500Whether there was justification for the answer given to the refrained third question or it was proper or not has to be judged on the basis as to how far the High Court in a reference could interfere with a finding of fact and transform the same into a question of law on the ground that there has beenn of all relevant facts. The law on this point is quite settledThe question was considered by this court exhaustively in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28 , where this court reiterated that findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal were not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it appeared that there was no evidence before the Tribunal upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come; and this was so, even though the High Court would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from that of the Tribunal. In other words, such a finding could be reviewed only on the ground that there was no evidence to support it or that it was perverseWhen a conclusion had been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts established by evidence, whether that was sound or not must be determined, not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. Where an ultimate finding on an issue was an inference to be drawn from the facts found, on the application of any principles of law, there would be a mixed question of law and fact, and the inference from the facts found was, in such a case, a question of law. But where the final determination of the issue equally with the finding or ascertainment of the basic facts did not involve the application of any principle of law, an inference from the facts could not be regarded as one of law. The proposition that an inference from facts was one of law was, therefore, correct in its application to mixed questions of law and fact, but not to pure questions of fact. In the case of pure questions of fact, an inference from the facts was as much a question of fact as the evidence of the facts. In the instant case, there is a finding of fact and unless it could be said that all the relevant facts had not been considered in a proper light, no question of law arises. In our opinion, the Tribunal took into account all the relevant facts. The Tribunal had been accused by the High Court of not taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had admitted these amounts in the assessment. To admit that there has been excess claim or disallowance is not the same thing as deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. At least in the background of the law as it stood at the relevant time, that was the position. There have been some changes subsequently which we have not noticed for the present purposeIn Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 , this court held that thex Appellate Tribunal was ag tribunal and if it arrived at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it, the court could not interfere. It was necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findings reached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there were any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. In this case, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the assessee had admitted the additions as its income when faced withe in assessment proceedings. The High Court accused the Tribunal of not considering the time when the assessee admitted the additions.We find that it was duly considered by the Tribunal. We find that the assessee, admitted that these were the incomes of the assessee but that was not an admission that there was deliberate concealment. From agreeing to additions, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be hundred and one reasons for such admission, i.e., when the assessee realises the true position, it does not dispute certain disallowances but that does not absolve the Revenue from proving the mens rea of a quasicriminal offence. In Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 , the court held that thex Appellate Tribunal performed a judicial function under thex Act and it was invested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its findings on all contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. The Tribunal was undoubtedly competent to disagree with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ; but in proceeding to do so, it had to act judicially, i.e., to consider all the evidence in favour of and against the, assessee. An order recorded on a review of only a part of the evidence and ignoring the remaining evidence could not be regarded as conclusively determinative of the question of fact raised before the Tribunal. It is for thex authority to prove that a particular receipt is taxable if, however, the receipt is accepted and a certain amount is accepted as taxable, it could be added but it was not accepted by the assessee, however, that it had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any income.In our opinion, the Tribunal has properly considered all the evidence in the instant case. In Rameshwar Prasad Bagla v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 421 , this court again reiterated that it was for the Tribunal to decide questions of fact, and the High Court in a reference under section 66 of the Act, as at that time, could not go behind the Tribunals findings of fact. The High Court could only lay down the law applicable to the facts found by the Tribunal. The High Court in a reference under section 66 of the Act, as at that time, could, however, go into the question as to whether the conclusion of the Tribunal on a question of fact was based upon relevant evidence. If the High Court found that there was no such evidence to support the finding of fact by the Tribunal, those circumstances would give rise to a question of law and could be agitated in a reference. Here, in the instant case, that is not the position. This court again reiterated that it was alsod that when a Tribunal acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material which was partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence, then, in such a situation, an issue of law arose and the finding of the Tribunal could be interfered with. That is not the position here. In the instant case, it is not said that the Tribunal had acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material which was partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions. The High Court was wrong in saying that proper weight had not been given to all the evidence and admissions made by the assessee. The High Court further observed that the time of admission was not noted by the Tribunal and this fact had not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. That is also not correct. Thex Officer had made additions during the assessment proceedings. In any event that would be appreciation of evidence in a certain way, unless in such misappreciation which amounted to, no question of law would arise.n may give rise to a question of law but not mere misappreciation, even if there be any, from a certain angle. Change of perspective in viewing a thing does not transform a question of fact into a question of lawAccording to the Tribunal, in these circumstances, the assessee could very well have argued against the addition of the two sums, namely, Rs. 67, 500 and Rs. 21, 700. But the assessee, as we have noted, had agreed to the amounts being included. The Tribunal was of the view that the mere fact that the amounts were agreed to be taken into account by the assessee did not ipso facto indicate any criminality in its action to conceal any portion of the income. The Tribunal found that so far as Rs. 48, 500 was concerned in the inflation in the price of sugarcane, the previous history was against the assessee. It had agreed to similar additions in the earlier years6 and, the Tribunal noted. From the above facts, it was seen that the penalty was warranted in a similar amount for this year also, the Tribunal noted. Taking into consideration the fact that the sum involved against this year was Rs. 48, 500, the Tribunal considered that a smaller penalty was imposable. The Tribunal accordingly imposed a total penalty of Rs. 5, 000The High Court reiterated that the onus of proving concealment was on the Revenue because the proceedings for penalty were penal in character. In that view of the matter, the High Court was of the opinion that so far as Rs. 48, 500 was concerned, it was not proved that there was any deliberate concealment. So far as the other two amounts of Rs. 67, 500 and Rs. 21, 700 were concerned, it was contended that the High Court noted the history of the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the circumstances of the case and the High Court was of the view that the Tribunal had not at all considered thet the value of the shortage was only Rs. 26, 429. According to the High Court, the Tribunal had brushed aside the fact that the assessee had agreed to the addition of this amount. According to the High Court, the Tribunal had not set aside the finding of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that the assessee surrendered the amount of Rs. 67, 500 when it was faced with facts which clearly established concealment. The assessee, according to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, had surrendered the amount only after thex Officer had conclusive evidence in his possession that the amount represented its income. In other words, what the High Court sought to state was that acceptance by the assessee was material to give proper weight to judge the criminality of the action which according to the High Court was not given. The High Court highlighted that, so far as Rs. 67, 500 was concerned, only on being faced with facts from which there could possibly be no escape from the inference that the amount represented his income, had the assessee agreed to its inclusion. The High Court was of the view that the Tribunal was in error in brushing aside consideration of these aspects while considering the question of concealmentIn respect of the addition of Rs. 21, 700, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had relied upon the statement of Kedar Nath Kanodia as also the fact that the assessee admitted that this item represented its income. The Tribunal did not place reliance upon the statement of Kedar Nath Kanodia. It, however, omitted to take into account the fact that the assessee had admitted that these items represented its income. The High Court was of the view that such admissions were made by the assessee but the Tribunal had not properly appreciated that aspect. Therefore, in respect of these two items, the High Court was of the view that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee was not guilty of any concealment. So far as question No. 2 was concerned which dealt with Rs. 48, 500, the High Court confined itself to the disallowance in respect of purchase of cane. In so far as this question was answered in favour of the assessee and there is no challenge by the Revenue, it is not material any more. The High Court came to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the concealment of Rs. 48, 500 was not justified in lawWe are unable to accept this contention. As evident from the discussion by the High Court, the High Court confined itself to the second question with regard to disallowance in respect of purchase of cane that amounted to Rs. 48, 500. So, therefore, it cannot be said that in view of the answer given to the second question, the third question was no longer open. The second question was confined to only Rs. 48, 500Whether there was justification for the answer given to the refrained third question or it was proper or not has to be judged on the basis as to how far the High Court in a reference could interfere with a finding of fact and transform the same into a question of law on the ground that there has beenn of all relevant facts. The law on this point is quite settledThe question was considered by this court exhaustively in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28 , where this court reiterated that findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal were not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it appeared that there was no evidence before the Tribunal upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come; and this was so, even though the High Court would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from that of the Tribunal. In other words, such a finding could be reviewed only on the ground that there was no evidence to support it or that it was perversen a conclusion had been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts established by evidence, whether that was sound or not must be determined, not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. Where an ultimate finding on an issue was an inference to be drawn from the facts found, on the application of any principles of law, there would be a mixed question of law and fact, and the inference from the facts found was, in such a case, a question of law. But where the final determination of the issue equally with the finding or ascertainment of the basic facts did not involve the application of any principle of law, an inference from the facts could not be regarded as one of law. The proposition that an inference from facts was one of law was, therefore, correct in its application to mixed questions of law and fact, but not to pure questions of fact. In the case of pure questions of fact, an inference from the facts was as much a question of fact as the evidence of the facts. In the instant case, there is a finding of fact and unless it could be said that all the relevant facts had not been considered in a proper light, no question of law arises. In our opinion, the Tribunal took into account all the relevant facts. The Tribunal had been accused by the High Court of not taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had admitted these amounts in the assessment. To admit that there has been excess claim or disallowance is not the same thing as deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. At least in the background of the law as it stood at the relevant time, that was the position. There have been some changes subsequently which we have not noticed for the present purposeIn Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 , this court held that thex Appellate Tribunal was ag tribunal and if it arrived at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it, the court could not interfere. It was necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findings reached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there were any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. In this case, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the assessee had admitted the additions as its income when faced withe in assessment proceedings. The High Court accused the Tribunal of not considering the time when the assessee admitted the additionsWe find that it was duly considered by the Tribunal. We find that the assessee, admitted that these were the incomes of the assessee but that was not an admission that there was deliberate concealment. From agreeing to additions, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be hundred and one reasons for such admission, i.e., when the assessee realises the true position, it does not dispute certain disallowances but that does not absolve the Revenue from proving the mens rea of a quasicriminal offenceIn our opinion, the Tribunal has properly considered all the evidence in the instant caseHere, in the instant case, that is not the position. This court again reiterated that it was alsod that when a Tribunal acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material which was partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence, then, in such a situation, an issue of law arose and the finding of the Tribunal could be interfered with. That is not the position here. In the instant case, it is not said that the Tribunal had acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material which was partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions. The High Court was wrong in saying that proper weight had not been given to all the evidence and admissions made by the assessee. The High Court further observed that the time of admission was not noted by the Tribunal and this fact had not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. That is also not correct. Thex Officer had made additions during the assessment proceedings. In any event that would be appreciation of evidence in a certain way, unless in such misappreciation which amounted to, no question of law would arise.n may give rise to a question of law but not mere misappreciation, even if there be any, from a certain angle. Change of perspective in viewing a thing does not transform a question of fact into a question ofn the instant case, we are of the opinion that in preferring one view to another view of factual appreciation, the High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under thex reference in answering the question of law