| 21/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Court of Appeal - Decisions in Income Tax Cases |
| Case No: 82 |
Decided: 30 June, 1972 |
   |
|
Estimated Assessments. Powers Of The Board Of Special Commissioners To Raise Revised Assessments. Alleged Desertion Of Case Before Board
|
The constitution of the Board was changed during the course of the appeal. When reconstituted, the new Board re-appointed the case to see whether the parties had fresh points to make. Taxpayer claimed that the case had been deserted. The Board rejected this point, pointing out that desertion did not apply to procedures before the Board and that, in any case, desertion would mean that the Commissioner's decision would become binding since procedures before the Board were appeals in character.
The Board refused to enter into issues as to whether the Commissioner had raised the assessments correctly since it was going to make fresh computations. Before the Court, appellant held that the Board should have done so, whereupon, he contended, the assessments would have been cancelled. The Court held that the Board was perfectly entitled to proceed as it did, in view of the wide powers granted to it. (However, although saying that it did not wish to enter into the matter, the Court proceeded to dismantle the taxpayer's case in this respect).
The taxpayer also complained about the way the Board had set about raising its assessments, which was different from what the Commissioner had done. The Court stated that he had little to complain about, seeing the paucity of his trading records, which were not even confirmed by the accountant compiling them. Moreover, these records were clearly erroneous in several respects. The Court could not subscribe to the idea that because a taxpayer does not keep records in accordance with the law's requirements, and because definitive figures could not be obtained from elsewhere, the Board had no option but cancel the assessments complained of, and exempt the taxpayer from payment. The Court quoted with approval a U.K. decision to the effect that the income "ascertained (it) must be, whether that can be done in a satisfactory manner or not."
BSC Case No: 27/65
|
|
|
|
|