| 22/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 9/51 |
Decided: 28 July, 1951 |
   |
|
The onus of proving that the assessment complained of is excessive is on appellant; appeal was rejected as appellant refused to give information requested by the Board and by the Commissioner - article 57(3), Income Tax Act, now 35(3), Income Tax Management Act
|
The Commissioner had assessed taxpayer on an amount that was about four times as much the amount declared. Appellant claimed that the Commissioner's assessment had been based on a substantial amount of stock that had been purchased before 1 January, 1948.
When the Commissioner asked appellant for details regarding the names of the suppliers and the name of his accountant, appellant refused to supply the information. The Commissioner invoked the application of article 57(3).
The Board held that the name of appellant's accountant was not relevant but the names of the suppliers were. The Courts had the right to demand the best possible proof not only regarding the quantity and prices of the merchandize but also regarding the dates of the transactions.
According to article 57(3) "the onus of proving that the assessment complained of is excessive shall be on appellant". When appellant had entered an appeal before the Board he had assumed the burden of proof that the assessments under appeal were excessive. Since he had failed to do so, the Board rejected the appeal and confirmed the Commissioner's decision.
|
|
|
|
|