COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs 7,89,611 shown in the balance-sheet as an asset and said to have been paid as bonus to the employees for the year 1952-53 was a permissible deduction under the Wealth-tax Act ?

(2.) THE opposite party-assessee was assessed to wealth-tax for the year 1957-58, on receipt of a return filed by it under section 142 of that Act, the valuation date being October 31, 1956

(3.) IT was urged that the aforesaid finding was based on no evidence but on mere surmise But this argument is not convincing Even in the absence of any direct evidence, a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal can base its conclusions on the basis of what are known as notorious facts, bearing in mind the principles of section 114 of the Evidence Act Any one conversant with the relations between the employer and employee in the industry may be prepared to hold that once a sum is given as bonus to several workmen, that sum can never be realised from those workmen if eventually it is declared that the said sum is not payable as bonus The finding on this point is essentially a finding of fact based on the natural course of conduct between an employer and employee and cannot be questioned in this reference