Case: Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-II Calcutta Vs. M/s. Radha Kishan Nandlal

the branch firm. Jhunjhunwalla stated in his evidence that the sum of Rs. 55,416 which was shown by him as his share in the income of the branch firm was really the entire profit earned by that firm. Evidently the Tribunal disbelieved this but it held that Jhunihunwalla had an 8-anna share in the income of the branch firm. The income of the branch firm was on that basis estimated by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,10,000 odd. Deducting therefrom a sum of Rs. 25,000 for expenses inclusive of amounts payable to the working partners, the Tribunal held that the total income of the branch firm which could be included in the assessees income would come to a sum of Rs. 75,000 only.4. The appellant the Commissioner of Income-tax. West Bangal-II, Calcutta, thereafter filed an application under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 asking the Tribunal to refer to the High Court two questions of law said to arise out of its judgment. The Tribunal rejected that application.5. The appellant thereafter filed an application in the High Court of Calcutta under Section 66 (2) of the Act praying that the Tribunal be asked to refer the two questions to the High Court. The High Court granted a Rule on that application but discharged it without a speaking order. This Court gave to the appellant special leave to appea1 from the order of the High Court.6. The two questions on which the appellant sought reference to the High Court are these:"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that the total income of the assessee from the firm of Radhakiseen Nandlal Arhatwala which was to be included in the assessees assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 was only Rs. 75.000/- the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in basing its conclusion on some evidence ignoring other essential matters on record ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said conclusion of the Tribunal was perverse in the sense that no reasonable man could come to it on the materials on record ?"7. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Department that M/s. Radhakissen Nandlal Arhatwalla wag not an independent firm consisting of the partners of the assessee-firm and certain outsiders but that it was a branch of the assessee-firm, The Tribunal, however. found that the Income-tax Officer had estimated the income of the branch firm on a fallacious" basis, In coming to this conclusion the Tribunal thought that Subhkaran Jhunjhunwalla had an 8-anna share in the branch firm and therefore the income of that firm could only be estimated at two times the income shown by him, namely, at Rs. 1,10.000. We are unable to find the basis on which the Tribunal concluded that Jhunihunwalla had an 8-anna share in the profits of the branch firm.8. The Tribunal also attempted to make an estimate of the income of the branch firm on the basis of the advances made to it by the assessee-firm, In the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, such advances amounted to Rs, 30 lakhs odd and Rs. 64 lakhs odd respectively. The profits assessed for these years were respectively Rs. 33,000 odd and Rs. 1 lakh odd. The advances made by the assessee-firm to the branch firm for the relevant year being Rs. 58 lakhs odd, the Tribunal thought that it did not stand to reason that even though the advances made for the relevant year were less than the advances made for the assessment year 1951-52, the profits of the relevant year could be estimated at nearly Rs. 9 lakhs that is to say. 9 times more than the profits for the year 1951-52. This seems to us prima facie conjectural because the profit derived from a business does not depend wholly on the amount of capital employed in the business. The capital employed in the business can at best be one of the circumstances to be taken into account for estimating the profits of the business but that circumstance cannot be conclusive. The assessee did not choose to lead evidence of any of the relevant circumstances nor did it produce the books of accounts.9. In The Commr. of Income-tax. Punjab v. Indian Woollen Textile Mills (1964) 5 SCR 427 = (AIR 1964 SC 735 ) it was held that though the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is binding on the High Court. it must appear that the Tribunal had considered evidence covering all the essential matters before arriving at its conclusion and there hag to be some evidence to support the finding of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that Jhunihunwalla had an 8-anna share in the profits of the branch firm seems to be based on no evidence while its attempted estimate of the income of the branch firm on the basis of advances made to it by the assessee-firm seems prima facie conjectural and opposed to the evidence on record. Counsel for the respondent relies on the decision in Meenakshi Mills, Madurai v. Commr. of Income-tax. Madras, 1956 SCR 691 = (AIR 1957 SC 49 ) and contends that no question of law arises out of the judgment of the Tribunal but we are unable to see anything in that judgment to support the contention. That decision on the contrary holds that a finding based on no evidence results in an error of law.10. The judgment of the Tribunal thus raises the questions whether it misdirected itself in law in basing, its conclusion on some evidence ignoring the other essential matters on record and whether the conclusion to which it came is such as no reasonable person could have come to. It is necessary that these questions should be decided by the High Court. We might mention that the High Court was not right in discharging the Rule without giving any reasons.(See Commr of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta v, Daulatram Rawatmall. (1970) 78 ITR 318 (SC).

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

Explanation:
1[ds]7. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Department that M/s. Radhakissen Nandlal Arhatwalla wag not an independent firm consisting of the partners of theand certain outsiders but that it was a branch of theThe Tribunal, however. found that theOfficer had estimated the income of the branch firm on a fallacious" basis, In coming to this conclusion the Tribunal thought that Subhkaran Jhunjhunwalla had anshare in the branch firm and therefore the income of that firm could only be estimated at two times the income shown by him, namely, at Rs. 1,10.000. We are unable to find the basis on which the Tribunal concluded that Jhunihunwalla had anshare in the profits of the branch firm.In The Commr. ofPunjab v. Indian Woollen Textile Mills (1964) 5 SCR 427   = (AIR 1964 SC 735  ) it was held that though the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is binding on the High Court. it must appear that the Tribunal had considered evidence covering all the essential matters before arriving at its conclusion and there hag to be some evidence to support the finding of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that Jhunihunwalla had anshare in the profits of the branch firm seems to be based on no evidence while its attempted estimate of the income of the branch firm on the basis of advances made to it by theseems prima facie conjectural and opposed to the evidence on record.The judgment of the Tribunal thus raises the questions whether it misdirected itself in law in basing, its conclusion on some evidence ignoring the other essential matters on record and whether the conclusion to which it came is such as no reasonable person could have come to. It is necessary that these questions should be decided by the High Court. We might mention that the High Court was not right in discharging the Rule without giving any reasons.(See Commr of(Central), Calcutta v, Daulatram Rawatmall. (1970) 78 ITR 318 (SC).