Tan Ah Tah J, A-G:

This is an appeal from a judgment of Chua J whereby he upheld the decision of the Board of Review in an appeal which was lodged by the appellant under s. 79 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166) and heard by the Board of Review under s. 80 of the Ordinance.

At the hearing before the Board of Review a document which was described as a Statement of Capital and Income was put in and marked as Exh. A. It has been strenuously argued by Counsel for the appellant in this Court that both the Board of Review and the learned Judge committed the error of regarding the figures appearing in the top line of Exh. A, which were intended to be used as a basis for discussion, as figures which were agreed and accepted as being correct. A perusal of the grounds of judgment of the Board of Review and of the learned Judge shows that there is no substance in this ground of appeal.

The view the Board of Review took of Exh. A can be seen from the following passage from their grounds of judgment:

The appellant sought to prove that the items shown in the agents' figures in Exh. A should be deducted. The Board did not accept the evidence of Mr. ABC and the books of account produced and in the absence of the evidence of the appellant found that the onus of proof placed upon him by the Ordinance had not been discharged.

In his judgment the learned Judge, after referring to Exh. A, expresses himself as follows:

The taxpayer said that these increases (i.e. the sums sought to be deducted) were attributable to sources which were not income and therefore not taxable. The taxpayer sought to prove that certain items should be deducted as they were not income and, as I have already said, to do this he relied entirely on

the evidence of his nephew ABC and on the account books, copies of accounts and documents produced.

It is, in my opinion, abundantly clear from the passages which I have just read that both the Board of Review and the learned Judge regarded the figures in the top line of Exh. A, not as figures which had been finally agreed and accepted as being correct, but merely as a basis for discussion and argument between the parties. It follows therefore that this ground of appeal fails.

As to the other grounds of appeal, I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which is about to be delivered by my brother Buttrose. I agree with it and have nothing to add.

In my judgment, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Buttrose J:

This is an appeal under s. 81 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Ch. 166), hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance", from a judgment of Chua J concerning two additional assessments made on the appellant/taxpayer by the Comptroller of Income Tax for the years of assessment, 1951 and 1952 based on the income for the years, 1950 and 1951.

The position was that the Comptroller had made additional assessments on the taxpayer for the years of assessment, 1951 to 1954 inclusive and the taxpayer had applied to the Comptroller under s. 76(2) of the Ordinance for these assessments to be reviewed and revised. The Comptroller declined to do so and the taxpayer filed a Notice of Appeal under s. 79 of the Ordinance and the appeal came on before the Board of Review. At the hearing the Comptroller withdrew the assessments in respect of the years, 1953 and 1954 and the appeals on these two withdrawn assessments were allowed. The appeals in respect of the 1951 and 1952 assessments were dismissed and the 1951 assessment was reduced to $196,335 and the 1952 assessment was increased to $428,560.

The decision of the Board was as follows:-

The Comptroller withdrew his assessments for 1953 and 1954 and these appeals are therefore allowed.

As regards the assessments for 1951 and 1952 the Board is unanimously of the opinion that the appellant has not discharged the onus of proof placed upon him by the Income Tax Ordinance. Subject to what follows these two appeals are dismissed.

In the absence of evidence f