Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division · Special Statutory Jurisdiction

BBC Bangladesh Limited v Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-8, Dhaka

Income Tax Reference 316/2018 · Decided 11 June 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

2judges on the bench

19pages

125paragraphs

5laws considered

Summary

BBC Bangladesh Limited, the local company of a news organisation headquartered in the United Kingdom, returned a net loss of Tk.7,19,24,092 for the 2014-2015 assessment year. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes disallowed Tk.1,30,11,994 of expenses and added Tk.5,29,08,700, received from abroad as share money deposit, to its receipts, reducing the loss to Tk.55,43,024. The Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) and the Taxes Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment. On the company's reference under section 160(1), the High Court Division held that the disallowances were based on the company's failure to produce supporting evidence, which is a purely factual matter on which the Tribunal's findings would not be disturbed. But no provision allowed foreign currency invested as share money deposit to be treated as income under section 28, and section 19 applies only to unexplained or unrecorded investments. The Deputy Commissioner had accepted the deposit as equity when examining the balance sheet. The first part of the question was answered for the Revenue and the second for the assessee.

Issues

Q1
Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Tk.1,30,11,994 of expenses for want of supporting evidence.
Q2
Whether a foreign remittance of Tk.5,29,08,700 received as share money deposit could be treated as business receipts under section 28 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984.

Key points

The power under section 35 to reject an assessee's accounts is discretionary and quasi-judicial, and any rejection must rest on tangible defects and a speaking order.
Accounts certified by a Chartered Accountant must still be supported by primary evidence, and section 35(3) does not exonerate the assessee from proving claimed deductions.
Disallowance of claimed expenses for lack of supporting evidence is a purely factual matter, and the Tribunal's findings on it will not be disturbed in reference.
Foreign remittance received and accepted as share money deposit cannot be added to business income under section 28 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984.
Investments are deemed income under section 19 only where they are excess or unrecorded and the assessee gives no satisfactory explanation of their source, and then only under the head income from other sources.

On a plain reading of the definitions of 'business' and 'income' and provisions of section 28 of the Ordinance, we find no statutory basis to add foreign remittances received as share money deposit to an assessee's revenue or income.

From the judgment, Justice Dihider Masum Kabir

Law considered

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, section 28Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, section 29Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, section 35Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, section 19Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, section 160(1)

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Income Tax Reference 316/2018, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 19 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

2(SPECIAL STATUTORY JURISDICTION) INCOME TAX REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 316 OF 2018

In the matter of:

An application under section 160 of the Income

Tax Ordinance, 1984.

In the matter of:

BBC Bangladesh Limited.

…….Applicant

-V E R S U S –

The Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-8,

Dhaka.

…….Respondent.

Mr. M. Saquibuzzaman, Advocate with

Mr. Kazi Ershadul Alam, Advocate with

Mr. Ragib Kabir, Advocate

……… For the applicant

Mr. Akhtar Farhad Zaman, D.A.G. with

Ms. Shadia Afrin Shapla, D.A.G. with

Mr. Arif Khan, D.A.G. with

Mr. Sovan Mahmud, A. A. G.

Mr. Md. Faridul Islam, A. A. G. and

Mr. Md. Nazmul Haque, A. A. G.

………. For the respondent.

Heard on 21.05.2026 & Judgment on

11.06.2026

3Present: Mr. Justice S.M. Maniruzzaman

4And Mr. Justice Dihider Masum Kabir Dihider Masum Kabir J:

5This reference application under section 160(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 (in short, the Ordinance) is at the instance of the assessee-applicant against an order of the Taxes Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench 1, Dhaka (in short, the Tribunal) passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 2449 of 2017-2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) dated

Page 2

28.02.2018 which was communicated to the applicant on 16.04.2018 disallowing the applicant's appeal against the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Taxes Appeal Zone-1, Dhaka [in short, the CT(A)] in the First Appeal No. 852/Circle-156/T.Z.- 8/16-17 against the assessment order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Tax Circle-156, Tax Zone-8, Dhaka (in short, the DCT).

6Facts, for the disposal of the reference application, in short, are that the applicant is a company limited by shares incorporated under the Companies Act, 1994 and it is the local office of the world renowned news outlet which has its head office in United Kingdom. The applicantcompany earns through gathering and broadcasting of news and an income tax payer bearing TIN-197458101877. The applicant submitted its income tax return for the assessment year 2014-2015 showing net loss of Tk.7,19,24,092/- which was assessed by the DCT on 29.06.2016 under section 93/83(2) of the Ordinance assessing loss of Tk. 55,43,024/-(Net loss taka fifty five lac forty three thousand and twenty four) and no tax was demanded.

7Challenging the said assessment order passed by the DCT, the applicant preferred an appeal before the CT(A) on the following two grounds:

8(1) That the DCT disallowed Tk.1,30,11,994/- on different heads

9of profit and loss account and ultimately treated that amount as

10income.

11(2) That the DCT considered as well as accepted addition of share

12money deposit of Tk.5,29,08,700/- as share equity in

Page 3

examination of balance sheet but at the same time that amount

13was treated by him as business receipt which was received as

14foreign remittance against equity investment in the applicant

15company.

16The CT(A) after hearing the applicant-assessee, confirmed the order of the DCT by his order dated 31.07.2017.

17Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the appeal order dated 31.07.2017, the applicant preferred an appeal (second appeal) being I.T.A. No. 2449 of 2017-2018 before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an order dated 28.02.2018 where the Tribunal did not interfere with the order of the CT(A) and the same was upheld.

18In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the assesseeapplicant filed the instant reference application before this Court under section 160(1) of the Ordinance for answering the following questions:

19I) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the

Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CT(A)

so as to uphold disallowance of Tk.1,30,11,994/- from the

different heads of profit and loss account which was

allowable expenses under section 29 of the Ordinance as

well as holding Tk.5,29,08,700/- as business income/

receipt in violation of section 28 of the Ordinance since the

said money is foreign remittance received as equity

injection;

Page 4

20II) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the

Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CT(A)

through its non-speaking order upholding DCT's

disallowance of Tk.1,30,11,994/- from the heads of

allowable expenses;

21III) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CT(A)

through its non-speaking order upholding DCT's inclusion

of Tk.5,29,08,700/- received by the applicant as foreign

remittance on share money deposit for equity injection as

business income in violation of the provisions of the

Ordinance;

22IV) Whether in view of section 28 of the Ordinance and on the

facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was

justified in upholding the order of the CT(A) upholding the

addition of Tk. 5,29,08,700/- to the total income of the

applicant as business income.

23The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that although the applicant filed the reference application formulating the above questions, if question No. (I) is answered then the other questions formulated in the reference application will automatically get its result.

24Mr. Kazi Ershadul Alam, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, took us through the order passed by the income tax authority. In this regard Mr. Alam submits that the Tribunal’s decision to disallow Tk.1,30,11,994/- from various heads of the profit and loss account is absolutely whimsical, non-speaking, and arbitrary. Learned Counsel

Page 5

contends that the method of accounting was employed in accordance with section 35 of the Ordinance and that the statement of accounts comprising the profit and loss account and balance sheet was duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. Furthermore, bank statements and relevant supporting documents were produced, all of which confirm that these are allowable expenses under section 29 of the Ordinance. Despite this, the authorities disallowed the expenses without specifying or pinpointing any lack of supporting document.

25Mr. Alam further argues that the Tribunal merely upheld the findings of the CT(A) and the DCT without providing any cogent reasons for its decision. Therefore, as a non-speaking order, the decision is liable to be set aside.

26Mr. Alam next submits that the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the CT(A) to uphold the addition of Tk. 5,29,08,700/- to the total income/receipt of the applicant as business income, is arbitrary and unlawful, in the regard Mr. Alam contends that section 28 of the Ordinance provides a list of income classified as ‘income from business or profession’ which does not include money received as an equity injection.

27Mr. Alam then argues that the Tribunal committed an error of both law and fact by failing to appreciate that under section 19 or any other provision of the Ordinance, there is no scope to treat equity contributions from share holders as business income/receipt. Moreover, the DCT accepted the said remittance of Tk.5,29,08,700/- as an equity contribution in the assessment order after examining and verifying the balance sheet with supporting documents. Therefore, the Tribunal’s

Page 6

decision is illegal and violates the applicable provisions of the Ordinance; as such, the order is liable to be set aside for the ends of justice.

28Ms. Shadia Afrin Shapla, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the respondent-Government by referring to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Dacca Zone, Dacca -vs- M/s Ata Hossain Khan Ltd., reported in 28 DLR (AD) 141 submits that there is no mandate upon the taxes authority to accept without question accounts audited by a Certified or Chartered Accountant. The requirement of law is that the income tax officer is to compute the profits upon such basis and in such manner as he may determine. Learned DAG further fortified her submission by reference to the decision in the case of Eskayef Bangladesh Ltd. -vs- Commissioner of Taxes, reported in 58 DLR (HCD) 531, where it was held that

“merely because a particular method of accounting was

followed and was audited by a Chartered Accountant firm

the same cannot be said to be sacrosanct when the

expenditures were not verifiable”.

29Learned DAG further submits that the order passed by the Tribunal, confirming the order of the CT(A) to uphold the addition of Tk.5,29,08,700/-under section 28 to the total income/receipt of the applicant as business income is fair, lawful and justified in accordance with the provision of the Ordinance. The applicant-assessee misinterpreted the provision of law. The said amount is remittance income of the applicant, not the equity contribution. That’s why the said amount was taken as business receipt/income under section 28 of the Ordinance.

Page 7

30Learned DAG finally goes to argue that the grounds in reference application are defective, misleading and misconceived and not tenable in the eye of law and the questions raised in the reference application is liable to be answered in the form of affirmative i,e. against the applicant and in favour of the taxes department.

31We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned Deputy Attorney General for the respondent-Government and perused the reference application, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, affidavit-inreply and other materials on record.

32The main thrust of the argument on behalf of the applicant before this Court is that the applicant maintained a mercantile or "commercial" system of accounting under section 35(3) of the Ordinance and filed a return accompanied by audited statement of accounts, as the accounts had been audited by a firm of Chartered Accountants, that should have been accepted in the absence of any objection or finding under section 35(4)(a) or (b) of the Ordinance.

33To have a clear idea with regard to the legal implication of the provision of section 35 of the Ordinance, on the impugned action, we feel it expedient to reproduce that section here, applicable for the assessment year 2014-2015, for ready reference which runs as follows:

34“35. Method of accounting.-

35(1) All income classifiable under the head "Agricultural income",

36"Income from business or profession’’ or "Income from other

37sources" shall be computed in accordance with the method of

38accounting regularly employed by the assessee.

Page 8

39(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, in the case of any business or profession, or class of business or profession, or any other source of income, or any class of persons or class of income, by a general or special order, direct that the accounts and other documents shall be maintained in such manner and form, and that payments of commercial transactions recorded in such manner, as may be prescribed or as may be specified in such direction; and thereupon the income of the assessee shall be computed on the basis of the accounts maintained, payments made and transactions recorded accordingly. (3) Without prejudice to the preceding sub-sections, every public or private company as defined in the Companies Act, 1913

40(VII of 1913) or কা ানী আইন, ১৯৯৪ (১৯৯৪ সেনর ১৮ নং আইন), shall, with the return of income required to be filed under this Ordinance for any income year, furnish a copy of the trading account, profit and loss account and the balance sheet in respect of that income year certified by a chartered accountant (4) Where — (a) no method of accounting has been regularly employed,

41or if the method employed is such that, in the opinion of

42the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, the income of the

43assessee cannot be properly deduced therefrom; or (b) in any case to which sub-section (2) applies, the assessee

44fails to maintain accounts, make payments or record

Page 9

transactions in the manner directed under that sub-

section; or

45(c) a company has not complied with the requirements of

sub- section (3);

46the income of the assessee shall be computed on such basis

47and in such manner as the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes

48may think fit.

49On a plain reading of the quoted provision of section 35 of the Ordinance, we find that the DCT is indeed empowered to reject an assessee's accounts. The power of the DCT to disallow books of account is discretionary, not absolute. It is a quasi-judicial function that must be exercised within the bounds of reason and fairness. Any rejection of accounts must be based on tangible defects and supported by a speaking order; otherwise, such an action constitutes an arbitrary exercise of authority that cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

50The records of the instant case reveal that certain heads of claims made by the applicant were not accepted because supporting evidence were not submitted. It transpires from the materials on record that the disallowances made by the DCT were based on the fact that the claims were not verifiable through supporting documents. This is not a question of the acceptability of the accounting system itself, but rather a failure by the assessee-applicant to provide evidence supporting claims for allowances and deductions.

51The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant emphasized that the accounts presented to the tax authorities had been audited by a Chartered Accountant and, therefore, could not be questioned. We find

Page 10

such a submission unacceptable. Even accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant must be supported by primary evidence.

52In the case of Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation and others -vs- Md. Shamsuddin Sheikh reported in 73 DLR (AD) 46, cited that,

“Every decision is made on the facts and circumstances of a

particular case and the decision is to be read along with the

facts of that case.”

53It is to be noted here that when the DCT, in disallowing certain claims, noted that they were unacceptable due to the assessee-applicant's failure to provide details and evidence, it became incumbent upon the applicant to produce the requisite documentation. The reasons provided for rejecting the claims served as sufficient notice to the applicant to furnish supporting evidence.

54Upon perusing the record, it is clear that the CT(A), in its appeal order dated 31.07.2017, rightly upheld the disallowances from the profit and loss accounts made by the DCT in its assessment order. Thereafter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal maintained the order of the CT(A), holding the view that the disallowances under several heads of expenses in the profit and loss accounts as confirmed by the learned CT(A), for the reasons assigned in his order, are found to be fair and reasonable. However, from the order of the Tribunal, we do not find that the applicant produced any such evidence, even at the appellate stage. The Tribunal is competent to decide all questions of fact and law and serves as the final arbiter of factual matters. In the instant case, the disallowances of claimed

Page 11

expenses are purely factual matters involving no complex question of law. In this regard, we find the tax authority's calculation to be tenable. We are of the view that we should not disturb the factual findings legally settled by the Tribunal.

55In the case of Commissioner of Taxes -vs- Conference and Exhibition Management Service Ltd. reported in 25 BLC (AD) 15, held that,

“When the tax authority indicates that any claims are

disallowed on account of lack of verifiable evidence, it is

incumbent upon the assessee to satisfy the tax authority by

providing necessary supporting evidence. The provision in

section 35(3) of the Ordinance, does not exonerate the

assessee from supplying evidence in support of the claims

for allowances/deductions.”

56It is our view that while section 35(3) of the Ordinance directs the applicant to furnish a trading account, a profit and loss account, and a balance sheet certified by a Chartered Accountant, such certification does not dispense with the requirement to produce evidence in support of the claims made therein.

57For the reasons and discussions set forth above, and upon considering the relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents regarding the disallowance of expenses, we find no merit in the applicant's contention.

58The applicant disclosed share capital (share money deposit) Tk. 3,88,59,850/- as on 31 March, 2013 and Tk.9,17,68,550/- as on 31 March, 2014 in its balance sheet, that is an increase of share money deposit of Tk.5,29,08,700/- which was reflected in the statement of

Page 12

accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant’s firm namely M. Z. Islam & Co. for the assessment year 2014-2015 and submitted income tax return which was assessed by the DCT under section 93/83(2) of the Ordinance. In its profit and loss account, the applicant declared revenue (receipt/income) of Tk. 3,16,197/- under section 28 of the Ordinance. But at the time of assessment, the DCT assessed revenue (receipt/ income) total Tk.5,32,24,897/- in place of Tk.3,16,197/- as under:

59B−ul Evpx hÉhp¡ qC−a Bu (pwh¡c f¢l−hn−el j¡dÉ−j Bu fÊ¡¢ç) Llc¡a¡ ®L¡Çf¡e£l 2014-2015 Llh−oÑ fÐ¡¢ç J MlQ ¢ejÀl¦fi¡−h fkÑ¡−m¡Qe¡ Ll¡ q−m¡x

60Hp Hp Hm ®VL ¢mx q−a fÐ¡¢ç V¡x 1,78,982/-

61Hp Hp ¢X JuÉ¡l−mp q−a fÊ¡¢ç V¡x 1,37,215/-

¯h−c¢nL AbÑ fÐ¡¢ç- V¡x 5,29,08,700/-

Bu V¡x 5,32,24,897/-

62The DCT without specifying any reason in a slip short manner assessed ¯h−c¢nL AbÑ fÐ¡¢ç V¡x 5,29,08,700/- on its income.

63To have a clear idea with regard to the legal implication of the definitions of 'business' and 'income' under clauses (14) and (34) of section 2 and provisions of section 28 of the Ordinance, we feel it expedient to reproduce those provisions here which run as follows:

642(14) "business" includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or

any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or

manufacture;

652(34) "income" includes-

(a) any income, profits or gains, from whatever source

derived, chargeable to tax under any provision of this

Ordinance under any head specified in section 20;

Page 13

(b) any loss of such income, profits or gains;

on by a mutual insurance association computed in

accordance with paragraph 8 of the Fourth Schedule;

(d) any sum deemed to be income, or any income accruing

or arising or received, or deemed to accrue or arise or be

received in Bangladesh under any provision of this

Ordinance:

66Provided that the amount representing the face value of any bonus share or the amount of any bonus declared, issued or paid by any company registered in Bangladesh under কা ানী আইন, ১৯৯৪ (১৯৯৪ সেনর ১৮ নং আইন) to its shareholders with a view to increase its paid-up share capital shall not be included as income of that share holder;

6728. Income from business or profession.-

68(1) The following income of an assessee shall be classified

and computed under the head "Income from business or

profession", namely:-

(a) profits and gains of any business or profession carried on,

or deemed to be carried on, by the assessee at any time

during the income year;

(b) income derived from any trade or professional

association or other association of like nature on account

of specific services performed for its members;

into money or not, arising from business or the exercise

of a profession;

Page 14

69(d) the amount, the value of the benefit and the trading

70liability referred to in section 19(15);

71(e) the excess amount referred to in section 19(16), (f) the excess amount referred to in section 19(18);

72(g) the sale proceeds referred to in section 19(20);

73(h) the amount of income under section 19(23). Explanation.- Where speculative transactions carried on by an assessee are of such a nature as to constitute a business, the business (hereinafter referred to as "speculation business") shall be deemed to be distinct and separate from any other business. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance,— (a) the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the

74tax payable thereon shall be computed in accordance with

75the provisions of the Fourth Schedule;

76(b) the profits and gains from the exploration and production

77of petroleum (including natural gas) and the tax payable

78thereon shall be computed in accordance with the

79provisions of Part A of the Fifth Schedule;

80(c) the profits and gains of any business which consists of, or

81includes, the exploration and extraction of such mineral

82deposits of a wasting nature (not being petroleum and

83natural gas) as may be specified in this behalf by the

84Government, carried on by an assessee in Bangladesh

85shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of

86Part B of the Fifth Schedule.

Page 15

87(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any

other provisions of this Ordinance, in the case of

Bangladesh Shilpa Bank, Bangladesh Shilpa Rin

Sangstha, Investment Corporation of Bangladesh, and any

commercial bank including the Bangladesh Krishi Bank

and Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank, the income by way of

interest in relation to such categories of bad or doubtful

debts as the Bangladesh Bank may classify in the income

year in which it is credited to its profit and loss account

for that year or, as the case may be, in which it is actually

received, whichever is earlier.

88On a plain reading of the definitions of 'business' and 'income' and provisions of section 28 of the Ordinance, we find no statutory basis to add foreign remittances received as share money deposit to an assessee's revenue or income. Furthermore, the DCT provided no explanation or legal reasoning in the assessment order for treating the foreign remittance received for share money equity of Tk.5,29,08,700/- as business income (revenue/receipt) under section 28 of the Ordinance.

89On the other hand, at the time of assessment, the DCT examined the balance sheet and considered the previous share equity of Tk.3,88,59,850/- and the subsequent increase in share money equity of Tk. 5,29,08,700/-, totaling Tk. 9,17,68,550/-, in the following manner:

Page 16

96The appeal order was passed by the CT(A) in Appeal No. 852/Circle-156/Taxes Zone-8/2016-17, dated 31.07.2017 wherein the assessment order of the DCT was upheld in a slipshod manner as follows:

we‡ePbv Kivi weiƒ‡×|

5,29,08,700/= UvKv‡K Avq wnmv‡e we‡ePbv K‡i‡Qb| AvqKi bw_

c«Zxqgvb nIqvq envj ivLv n‡jv|Ó

97Thereafter, the appeal (second appeal) order was passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No.2449 of 2017-2018, dated 28.02.2018 wherein the appeal (first appeal) order of the CT(A) was upheld as follows:

“We have heard both the sides, perused the records and

gone through the order of the authorities discussed above.

At the time of hearing before tribunal learned A.R. could

not produce any evidence to controvert the order of learned

C.T. (Appeals). So, considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, we are of the view that the decision of the

learned C.T. (Appeals) regarding receipts was just and

proper. Hence, we decided very judiciously not to interfere

Page 17

with the order of the learned C.T. (Appeals) and the same is

upheld. Therefore, the ground taken by the assessee for the

assessment year fails.”

98We have perused the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 19, under which an investment may be treated as income and subsequently classified under the head 'Income from other sources.' For the sake of clarity, the relevant provisions of section 19 of the Ordinance are quoted herein below: 19. Un-explained investments, etc., deemed to be income. —

9919(2) Where, in any income year, the assessee has made

100investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

101or other valuable article and the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes

102finds that the amount expended on making such investments or in

103acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds

104the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account

105maintained by the assessee for any source of income and the

106assessee offers no explanation about the excess amount or the

107explanation offered is not, in the opinion of the Deputy

108Commissioner of Taxes, satisfactory, the excess amount shall be

109deemed to be the income of the assessee for such income year

110classifiable under the head "Income from other sources".

11119(4) Where, in the financial year immediately preceding the

112assessment year, the assessee has made investments which are not

113recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for

114any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation

115about the nature and source of fund for the investments, or the

Page 18

explanation offered is not, in the opinion of the Deputy

116Commissioner of Taxes, satisfactory, the value of the investments

117shall be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial

118year classifiable under the head "Income from other sources".

119We have minutely examined the provisions of sub-sections (15), (16), (18), (20) and (23) of section 19 of the Ordinance also. A plain reading of the aforementioned provisions reveals that where an excess investment is found, or where an investment has been made and that is not recorded in the books of accounts, and the assessee offers no explanation regarding the nature and source of the funds or the explanation offered is unsatisfactory the excess value or the value of the investment, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the assessee for that financial year, classifiable under the head 'Income from other sources.' We find no provision of law that allows for the determination of foreign currency invested as a 'share money deposit' as income under section 28 of the Ordinance.

120In the instant case, the applicant invested foreign currency as a share money deposit and produced bank statements, remittance papers, and other relevant documents. These were examined and accepted by the DCT in the assessment order while evaluating the balance sheet, however, the DCT treated the same amount as revenue (receipt/income) in the profit and loss account without any lawful justification. Both the lower appellate authorities failed to apply their judicial minds. While the Tribunal is competent to decide all questions of fact and law and serves as the final arbiter of factual matters, the legal aspects were entirely

Page 19

ignored. Furthermore, the first appellate order of the CT(A) is highly unsatisfactory and does not constitute a speaking order.

121For the reasons and discussions set forth above, and considering the facts and relevant legal provisions, we are of the view that the Income Tax Authority acted beyond the scope of the law. Accordingly, we find merit in the last part of the reference application.

122Therefore, it is ordered that the question formulated in the income tax reference application, the first part is answered in the affirmative that is, against the applicant-assessee and in favour of the respondent and the last part is answered in the negative that is, against the respondent and in favour of the applicant-assessee.

123Accordingly, the income tax reference application succeeds in part.

124However, there shall be no order as to costs.

125The Registrar, High Court Division of Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to take steps under section 161(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 read with section 294(2) of the Income Tax Act, 2023. S.M. Maniruzzaman, J

I agree

Related summaries.

High Court DivisionWrit Petition 6249/2025Jahurul Islam Medical College and Hospital v National Board of Revenue and othersRule made absolute High Court DivisionWrit Petition 15827/2025Tahmid Enterprise v Government of Bangladesh and othersRule disposed of with direction High Court DivisionWrit Petition 1789/2014Anlima Yarn Dying Limited v Government of Bangladesh and othersRule discharged

All judgment summaries →

Where TRW & Co can help

From the record to your case.

Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.

Practice areaTax Disputes→Practice areaVAT & Customs→Practice areaCustoms & Trade Compliance→

Keep reading