Legal Maxim

6 Record(s) | Page [1 of 1]

benificium invito non datur : A benefit cannot be conferred upon a person unwilling to accept it
benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes et verba intentioni debent inservire : Liberal interpretation should be the rule, and the words should be made to carry out the intention.
benignior sententia, in verbis generalibus seu dubiis, est praeferenda : The most favourable construction is to be placed on general or doubtful expression.
bona : Good
bona fide : Literally, it means “in good faith”, but used in English as an adjective with the meaning of “genuine”, “without fraud”. “Bona fide” means in good faith or genuinely. It conveys absence of intent to deceive. (Smt. Subhadran Devi v. Sunder Dass Tek Chand AIR 1965 Punj. 188.) It refers to honest intention. (See Madhurilata Devi v. Gourapada Basak AIR 1985 NOC 18 (Gauhati).) Bona fide is a mental state negativating dishonesty and has no relation to negligence or want of care. It only means negation of fraud or dishonesty and a real genuine transaction. Although the meaning of good faith may vary in the context of different statutes, subjects and situations, honest intention free from taint or fraud or fraudulent design is a constant element of its connotation [Brijendra Singh v. State of UP AIR 1981 SC 636]. The essence of “good faith” is honesty. It precludes pretence or lack of fairness and uprightness [Sardar Gur Iqbal Singh v. CIT [1992] 197 ITR 269 (All.)]. Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act defines ‘good faith’ as “a thing shall be deemed to be done in ‘good faith’ where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not”. ‘Good faith’ would mean anything done honestly, whether done negligently or not. A person could not be said to be acting honestly where he has a suspicion that there is something wrong and does not make further enquiries. Being aware of possible harm to others and acting in spite thereof is acting with reckless disregard of consequences. It is worse than negligence for negligent action is that the consequence of which the law presumes to be present in the mind of the negligent person, whether actually it was there or not. This legal presumption is drawn through the well-known hypothetical reasonable man. For the purposes of judging whether anything was done in good faith what is to be seen is whether an authority or individual, being aware of a possible harm to the others, acts in spite thereof in reckless disregard of consequences. If it is so, it would be a case, so far as the actual state of mind of the actor is relevant, of mala fides. It would appear that for purposes of the definition of the expression ‘done in good faith’ as given in section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, any action taken by a person being aware of possible harm to others in total reckless disregard of the consequences can be treated as not honest. In deciding the question of good faith, what comes into consideration is the intention of honesty and the absence of bad faith or mala fide. (Shareef Ahmad v. CWT [1979] 117 ITR 35 (All.)) It is pertinent to note section 52 of the Indian Penal Code which defines ‘good faith’ as nothing is said to be done or believed in ‘good faith’ which is done or believed without due care or attention. For purposes of criminal liability, anything which is done or believed without care and attention, cannot be said to have been done or believed in good faith. In quasi-criminal proceedings like penalty proceedings, it is this definition which in any case would be more relevant in judging the state of mind of the person for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion, whether or not there is a conscious concealment. If this definition is borne in mind, it would be apparent that cases of gross neglect which would necessarily involve want of due care and attention, would prove a guilty state of mind. (CIT v. Drapco Electric Corpn. [1980] 122 ITR 341 (Guj.).) If the assessee by his gross neglect, brings about avoidance or evasion of tax thereby causing loss to the public revenue, he could not be said to have acted in good faith. The conclusion can be legitimately reached in that case that gross neglect is equal to lacking in bona fides. The element of honesty which is introduced by the definition prescribed by the General Clauses Act is not introduced by the definition of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be enquired whether a person acted with due care and attention. There is no doubt that its mere plea that the accused believed that what he stated was true by itself, will not sustain his case of good faith. Simple belief or actual belief by itself is not enough. The person must show that the belief in his impugned statement has a rational basis and is not just a blind simple belief. (Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97.)
bona gestura : Good behaviour

6 Record(s) | Page [1 of 1] in 0.031 seconds

Quick Access

Tax Information and Services

Tax Laws & Rules

International Taxation