Judicial Indiscipline

Swami Premananda Vs CIT (Dated: December 16, 2008) Swamiji in jail - His income cannot be treated as income of TRUST - amounts which have 'come in' are income - the amounts received by the writ petitioner constituted income since it was profits and gains arising out of his vocation, profession or business. It is for the assessee to show that these receipts received by him are exempt from tax. Judicial Indiscipline - examining all the donors is as practical as examining all the Puri Temple Pilgrims - There are exceptional situations where compliance with the superior officer's order is almost impossible - In the present case, the CIT( Appeals) had very caustically remarked that the affidavits have been cursorily examined and had therefore, directed in his remand orders that these affidavits should be examined properly. On facts, examination of the donors who allegedly have sent in money from many countries e.g. Switzerland, Italy, U.K., Holland, Belgium, and France, etc, would have been as practical as examining all the Puri Temple Pilgrims, who were donors. The spirit of the remand order was to give a fair opportunity to the assessee and to really 'consider' the affidavits and not merely cursorily examine them. There are exceptional situations where compliance with the superior officer's order is almost impossible. This is one such. Burden of proving the source or the category under which the receipts should be classified is on the assessee - "A mere identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim of gift is made by the assessed, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make such a gift" From this, it is clear that the burden of proving the source or the category under which the receipts should be classified is on the assessee, and any receipt will be treated as income unless the assessee shows that it comes under an exemption. High Court's interference: In Union of India and others Vs. Shatabadi Trading and Investment P. Ltd. and others the Supreme Court held that the supervisory power of the High court would not get enlarged; nor can the High Court exercise an appellate power while examining the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Authority. There is no quarrel with this position. But the High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always there to check illegality, arbitrariness, perversity etc. The High Court said "But we will not lightly or easily disturb concurrent factual findings.": MADRAS HIGH COURT ;