Case: Moti Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

British India had not been out of the profits and that therefore the burden which lay on the appellant of rebutting the presumption that remittances were made out of profits had not been discharged. It appears from the judgment of the Tribunal that at the hearing before it after the report of the Income-tax Officer had been received, the appellant for the first time sought to argue that there were no remittances to British India at all. The matter was then put in this way : The remittances had been made on account of price of goods purchased by the appellant in British India. These remittances had been made by telegraphic money-orders despatched from Srinagar Post Offices and by Bank drafts sent by post from Srinagar. The remitter, that is, the appellant, had no control over the moneys covered by the telegraphic money-orders or the bank drafts, once the instructions for the telegraphic money-orders had been given or the bank drafts issued and therefore the moneys covered by them were thereafter not the appellants moneys. The moneys were despatched by telegraphic money-orders and bank drafts sent by post under the instructions of the sellers of the goods and therefore the Post Office was really the agent of these sellers. That being so, when the moneys or drafts were put into the Post Office at Srinagar for transmission to the sellers, they had really become the property of the sellers and the appellant ceased to be the owner of them. Therefore, the moneys that were brought into India under this arrangement and by this method were the moneys of the sellers and not really the appellants moneys and whether they were his profits in Srinagar or not, the appellant was not liable to pay tax on them. The Tribunal felt that this contention of the appellant raised new questions of fact which could not be decided without taking further evidence and it thereupon did not allow the appellant to raise it. As there was no other objection to the Appellate Assistant Commissioners order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal from it :.7. The appellant then made an application to the Tribunal under S. 66 (1) of the Act for a reference of certain questions to the High Court of Punjab for its decision but this application was dismissed. The appellant did not thereafter make any application to the High Court under S. 66 (2) for an order on the Tribunal to refer the question to the former as the Department had in the meantime attached the appellants properties in British India and was proceeding to realise the amount of the tax levied, and the appellant wanted a stay of the proceedings for the realisition of the tax which he was advised, the High Court could not grant in an application under S. 66. (2). In those circumstances the appellant applied to this Court for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Tribunal and such leave was granted on 1-2-1954. The present appeal arises from the leave so granted. This Court at the same time ordered a stay of the proceedings for the realisation of the tax from the appellant.8. The learned counsel for the appellant raised before us the question which the Tribunal had not permitted the appellant to raise before it, namely, whether the moneys brought into British India were the appellants moneys or not. We do not think it necessary to go into the merits of this contention and indeed we cannot decide it on the materials on the record.We are clear in our mind that the Tribunal was right in holding that the question raised by the appellant could not be decided without taking further evidence. The Tribunal refused permission to the appellant to lead further evidence and it had full jurisdiction to do so. We see no reason to interfere with the exercise of the Tribunals discretion in the matter. We find nothing to throw any doubt on the Tribunals finding that the present contention was raised by the appellant for the first time when the case came back to the Tribunal on the report of the Income-tax Officer.Indeed it is quite clear to us that if this contention had been raised earlier, the remand to that Officer would have wholly unnecessary and the appellant himself would have pointed this out especially in view of the fact that he was not in a position to show that his profits at Srinagar had not been mixed up with the working funds to enable him to do which alone the case had been remanded.9. It was contended before us that the Tribunal had in fact asked the appellant to produce affidavits to prove what the arrangement with the sellers was regarding the despatch of the moneys and a certificate from the Bank to show that the moneys had been sent by drafts and telegraphic money orders and that once a draft was issued to a beneficiary it could not be recalled by the sender. It was said that the appellant had in fact produced the affidavits and certificate. These are actually included in the printed records. The respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, contended that the Tribunal had never asked for any affidavits or certificate. We are inclined to think that the respondent is right, for we do not find anywhere any order by the Tribunal calling for the affidavits or the certificate.Further it was open to the Tribunal, even if it had earlier given permission to the appellant to produce the affidavits and the certificate, not to accept them, if it decided not to allow the appellant to raise the new contention, as it in fact did decide. We may also state that we are not in any event satisfied that the affidavits and the certificate support the appellants contention.It is unnecessary to go into this aspect further for we think that the Tribunal was justified in refusing leave to the appellant to raise a new contention.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The learned counsel for the appellant raised before us the question which the Tribunal had not permitted the appellant to raise before it, namely, whether the moneys brought into British India were the appellants moneys or not.We do not think it necessary to go into the merits of this contention and indeed we cannot decide it on the materials on the record.We are clear in our mind that the Tribunal was right in holding that the question raised by the appellant could not be decided without taking further evidence. The Tribunal refused permission to the appellant to lead further evidence and it had full jurisdiction to do so. We see no reason to interfere with the exercise of the Tribunals discretion in the matter. We find nothing to throw any doubt on the Tribunals finding that the present contention was raised by the appellant for the first time when the case came back to the Tribunal on the report of theOfficer.Indeed it is quite clear to us that if this contention had been raised earlier, the remand to that Officer would have wholly unnecessary and the appellant himself would have pointed this out especially in view of the fact that he was not in a position to show that his profits at Srinagar had not been mixed up with the working funds to enable him to do which alone the case had been remanded.9.It was contended before us that the Tribunal had in fact asked the appellant to produce affidavits to prove what the arrangement with the sellers was regarding the despatch of the moneys and a certificate from the Bank to show that the moneys had been sent by drafts and telegraphic money orders and that once a draft was issued to a beneficiary it could not be recalled by the sender. It was said that the appellant had in fact produced the affidavits and certificate. These are actually included in the printed records.The respondent, the Commissioner of, contended that the Tribunal had never asked for any affidavits or certificate.We are inclined to think that the respondent is right, for we do not find anywhere any order by the Tribunal calling for the affidavits or the certificate.Further it was open to the Tribunal, even if it had earlier given permission to the appellant to produce the affidavits and the certificate, not to accept them, if it decided not to allow the appellant to raise the new contention, as it in fact did decide. We may also state that we are not in any event satisfied that the affidavits and the certificate support the appellants contention.It is unnecessary to go into this aspect further for we think that the Tribunal was justified in refusing leave to the appellant to raise a new contention.