| 20/5/2012 |
HOME
FSS
Downloads
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 19/82 |
Decided: 18 March, 1986 |
   |
|
No evidence to be considered by the Board where appellant fails to deliver to the Commissioner, within thirty days after the first Board sitting, the records required to be kept by article 42 of the Income Tax Act (now article 19, Income Tax Management Act) - article 57A(b) and (c), Income Tax Act, now 36(b) and (c), Income Tax Management Act
|
The Commissioner requested the Board to apply article 57A(b) in respect of all the (original and additional) assessments complained of, because appellant had failed to deliver the records, required to be kept by article 42. The Commissioner claimed that the records produced were in respect of only one line of trade while appellant had not produced any records in respect of his other lines of trade. Besides, the records produced did not satisfy the requirements of article 42 because appellant's income and allowable deductions could not be readily ascertained therefrom.
Appellant maintained that his other lines of trade were carried on only sporadically and occasionally and, therefore, the income therefrom could be readily arrived at without any reference to records.
The Board considered that the application of article 57A(b) depended on three conditions: (i) the assessment is to have been raised in accordance with article 52 (now article 30, ITMA); (ii) the dispute includes a dispute concerning article 5(1)(a) - now 4(1)(a) - and (iii) failure by appellant to deliver to the Commissioner, within thirty days of the first sitting, the records required to be kept by article 42.
Regarding the first condition, the Board noted that two of the eight assessments complained of were additional assessments, issued under article 53 and not article 52. The Board held that these assessments were not subject to the provisions of article 57A(b) and, therefore, it would continue to consider evidence only in respect of these two (but not of the other six) assessments.
Regarding the second requisite the Board held that there was no doubt that the dispute concerned article 5(1)(a). Finally the Board held that appellant had been obliged to produce sufficient records in respect of all his lines of business; the records produced did not satisfy article 42 because they did not include any cash accounts, stock lists, receipts, invoices.
The appeal was therefore rejected, except as regards the two additional assessments.
An appeal was entered before the Court from this decision.
|
|
|
|
|