JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred two questions for decision by this Court, viz., (1) Whether there is any material or evidence on which the Tribunal could find that the sum of Rs. 75,000/- or any other sum had been remitted to India in the year in question, and (2) Whether there is a presumption in the circumstances in favour of the alleged remittances? 2. The above to questions are so intimately related to each other, that we may deal with them jointly in this case. A Presumption properly arising from a given set of circumstances is a material on which legal conclusion may be made. If therefore in the facts and circumstances of this case, a presumption that the assesse had remitted any amount from Ceylon to India in the Relevant year could be drawn, certainly that would be a material on which the officers and the Tribunal may act and base their finding for purposes of assessing income-tax. Question No. 2 is thus involved in question No. 1 or is only an amplification of the latter. 3. The circumstances under which the reference is made are as follow: The assessee who is a native of Chowghat in Malabar had been in Ceylon from 1925 onwards assisting his uncle Raman in his toddy business there. Raman died on 15-7-1942. On 1-10-1943 the assessee started business of his own as a toddy-renter; and for the year ended with 30-9-1944 he earned a profit of Rs. 79,635/- out of which he remitted Rs. 12,383/- to Malabar leaving a balance of Rs. 67,252/- to his credit in Ceylon. On 1-10-1944 he took M. K. Velayudhan in partnership with him in the business, the profits being agreed to be shared equally between them. In the year ended with 30th September, 1945 the firm had, as seen from the assessment order of the Ceylon Income-tax authorities, earned a profit or Rs. 150,000/- out of which the assesse's share would be Rs. 75,000/-. 4. The assessment that we are concerned here is in respect of the accounting year 1-10-1944 to 30-9-1945. It is common case that in the said year the assessee was not ordinarily resident in India and that his business in Ceylon was not being controlled and managed from India. 150,000/- out of which the assesse's share would be Rs. 75,000/-. 4. The assessment that we are concerned here is in respect of the accounting year 1-10-1944 to 30-9-1945. It is common case that in the said year the assessee was not ordinarily resident in India and that his business in Ceylon was not being controlled and managed from India. He can therefore be assessed under the second proviso to Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act on the income, profits and gains of his business in Ceylon only so far as they are brought into or received in India during the accounting year. It was contended brought into or received in India during the accounting year. It was contended by the assessee that in that year he had remitted to India only a sum of Rs. 1,22-8-0 on 7-8-1945 leaving all the rest of his income invested in business in Ceylon. It is found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that he was continuing his business as a toddy-renter in Ceylon consistently till 30th September, 1951, though he came over to India on 25-8-1944 and did not go to Ceylon thereafter. The case of the assessee is that he had to pay Rs. 1,59,468/- as advance toddy excise rent in Ceylon before 30-9-1945 and therefore he could not make any other remittance to India than what he was admitted as aforesaid. The Department has accepted the truth of this statement as is evident from paragraph 6 of the Statement of the case which reads as follows:- The partnership business aforesaid paid Rs. 1,59,468/- for the assessee's half share as advance rent for toddy taverns taken in auction for the next abkari year commencing from 1-10-1945 on 28-6-1945.� 5. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, assessed him for an income of Rs. 1,42,252/- The way in which he arrived at this figure is stated in his order thus; In the first year of business, i.e. the year ended 30-9-1944, the appellant had earned an income of Rs. 79,635/- out of which Rs. 12,383/- was remitted to the taxable territories in that year. There was thus a balance of Rs. 67,252/- available for remittance as at the beginning of the accounting year i.e. as on 1-10-1944. In the absence of account books and other evidence, this sum also will be deemed to have been remitted in full during the year under review. 12,383/- was remitted to the taxable territories in that year. There was thus a balance of Rs. 67,252/- available for remittance as at the beginning of the accounting year i.e. as on 1-10-1944. In the absence of account books and other evidence, this sum also will be deemed to have been remitted in full during the year under review. In this connection it may be mentioned that there was no restrictions on remittances from Ceylon to India in the accounting year. The appellant's counsel stated that such restrictions actually came into force only on the year 1948. In this context, it would not at all be unreasonable to presume that the entire accumulated profits had been remitted to the taxable territories in the accounting year. Thus the question of the income to be taxed in the appellant's hands for the assessment year 1946-47 is Rs. 75000/-plus Rs. 67,252/- or Rs. 1,42,252/-.� The Appellate Tribunal also held:- The assesse has, after several years of Ceylon connection, come back and settled down in his native country from September, 1944. He has admittedly made profits in Ceylon for the two years 1-10-1943 to 30-9-1945. The natural presumption in such situation is that the foreign profits would have been remitted to India.� And after finding that the capital of the assessee in the firm on 1-10-1945 as the opening capital for the abkari year commencing from that date� was Rs. 60,000/-, continued: It is not unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case, to consider that a large part of this represented his accrued profits left behind in Ceylon. Having due regard to the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the assessment of Rs. 1,42,252/- for assessment year 1946-47 is excessive. We reduce it to only Rs. 75,000/-.� (The assessment in 1946-47 related to the income of the year ended with 30-9-1945) 6. We are unable to follow the reasoning in the above orders. How a person who had earned Rs. 1,42,252/- in the period 1-10-1943 to 30-9-1945 but had to invest Rs. 1,59,458/- towards the end of that period for the next year's business can be presumed to have remitted the first mentioned sum of even Rs. 75,000/- from his place of business to another country seems incomprehensible to us. How a person who had earned Rs. 1,42,252/- in the period 1-10-1943 to 30-9-1945 but had to invest Rs. 1,59,458/- towards the end of that period for the next year's business can be presumed to have remitted the first mentioned sum of even Rs. 75,000/- from his place of business to another country seems incomprehensible to us. There is no evidence in the case that the assessee was possessed of other available funds in Ceylon to make the deposit of Rs. 1, 59, 468/- in the accounting year. The normal course of conduct that may be expected of a accounting year. The normal course of conduct that may be expected of a businessman in the circumstances is to make the requisite deposit with the accumulated profits of the current and previous years. A person severing all his connections in one State and leaving for another might well be presumed to have taken with him all his available assets; but not one who was making large investments and continuing his business in the first country for several years after his departure there from. Even though the assessee came over to India from Ceylon on 25-8-1944 he has admittedly invested over a lakh and half even about a year thereafter and continued his Ceylon business for another six years even after that. There is no reason to presume that such a person must have withdrawn all his belongings from Ceylon. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal have made little consideration of the fact of continuance of the business in Ceylon by the assessee for several years after he came back to India. Admittedly there is no evidence to show that any remittance was made to India by the assessee in the accounting year, except the sum of Rs. 1,022 ½ mentioned already. It is thus clear that the findings of the Income tax authorities in this case are based on mere conjectures, surmises and suspicious not supported by any evidence on record. 7. The powers given to officers under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act however wide, do not entitle them to make assessments on pure guess or bare suspicion. It is thus clear that the findings of the Income tax authorities in this case are based on mere conjectures, surmises and suspicious not supported by any evidence on record. 7. The powers given to officers under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act however wide, do not entitle them to make assessments on pure guess or bare suspicion. Though they are not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and are entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law, in making the assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, they are not entitled to assess tax on pure guess without reference to any evidence or any material therefor. To support or sustain an assessment under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act there must be something more than bare suspicion. See Dhakeswari Cotton Mills, Ltd. v Commissioner of Income-tax (A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 1238) 8. Barring the presumption� referred to above there is no material disclosed in this case to support a finding that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- or any other sum than Rs. 1,022-8-0 admitted by the assessee had been remitted to India from Ceylon in the year in question; and the so-called presumption is no legal presumption that can justly be inferred from any fact or circumstance revealed in the case and as such is a mere guess or suspicion only. Hence we answer both the questions referred to us in this case in the negative. 9. As the assessee has not produced his books of account and thereby tried to convince the authorities of the actual disposal of his accumulated profits in the year in question, we do not make any order for costs in his favour.