NABADWIP CHANDRA ROY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income -tax Act by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, for a decision of this Court. The points under reference are as follows :

(2.) IT is necessary to advert to the facts with a view to understand and decide the points under reference and I am taking recourse to the statements of facts made by the Income -tax Tribunal. The applicant, Nabadwip Chandra Roy, had a business in cloth and yarn. In the year of account he was also a Director of the Assam Provincial Textile Co -operative Society and was paid a sum of Rs. 6,103 as bonus in consideration of services rendered by him in that capacity. The amount was not disclosed in the return submitted by him for the assessment year 1950 -51 but the Income -tax Officer held that the amount was taxable and added it to the total income of the assessee. The assessee admitted the receipt of the above amount as bonus in the capacity of a director of the Assam Provincial Textile Co -operative Society. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the point taken by the assessee was that this was his capital receipt and was not assessable to income -tax. That contention was repelled. In the appeal filed before the Income -tax Tribunal, however, the applicant pressed his claim for exemption on the ground that the receipt in question representing the bonus was of a casual and non -recurring nature and was not assessable to income -tax, it having come within the provisions of section 4 (3) (vii) of the Income -tax Act. This contention, however, was rejected by the Tribunal on the view that this income represented a receipt by the assessee from a vocation, and, therefore, it could not come under the exemption provision as indicated above.

(3.) THE third point is of some importance and it refers to a cash credit of Rs. 11,000 in the Amanat or deposit account of the assessee, namely, Rs. 1,000 in the name of assessees daughter, Srimati Suniti Bala, and Rs. 10,000 in the name of her husband, Nisi Kanta Saha. The applicant explained before the Income -tax Officer that the money had been deposited by his son -in -law, Nisi Kanta Saha, and he had deposited the same amount to his credit. The assessee produced before the Income -tax Officer a letter purported to be dated 6th of Baisakh 1355 B. S. alleged to have been written by his -in -law, Nisi Kanta Saha, and he (Nisi) was further examined by the Income -tax Officer, Shillong, in this connection. The witness deposed to have deposited this amount with his father -in -law and stated that he had collected that amount from some merchants in Calcutta with whom he carried on trade at the material time. The Income -tax Officer, however, rejected the explanation of the applicant as to the source of the cash credit and added the amount to the total income of the assessee as his income from some undisclosed source. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal concurred in the view that it represented assessees income from some hidden source and the money actually did not belong to Nisi Kanta Saha as was alleged. On this view the assessment was held.