Ching Boon Huat v Comptroller of Income Tax

• Court: Privy Council
• Judge: Lord Keith of Kinkel
• Judgment Date: 19 July 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGPC 4
• Citation: [1984] SGPC 4
• Defendant Counsel: DC Potter QC and Lucy Hangchi (Jaques & Co)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lim Chor Pee (Douglas Goldberg & Co)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Docket Number: Privy Council Appeal No 1 of
• Date: 19 July 1984
• Subject Matter: Appeal against assessments,Whether gains trade of property developer,Decision of fact,Appeals,Revenue Law,s 10(1)(a) Income Tax Act (Cap 114),Income taxation

The appellant was assessed in 1972 for income tax upon profits for the sale of land in 1966 and 1968. The only issue was whether he was carrying on a trade or business dealing in land at the time of each of those sales.

The Board of Review held that he was and disbelieved him when he said that his intention throughout the period that he held a larger area of land of which the portions sold formed part was to construct flats and houses as an investment.

The principle laid down in this country and applied also in Singapore is that laid down in Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14. The judge and the Court of Appeal asked themselves the right question: could a reasonable tribunal reach that decision of fact? Their Lordships agree that it could and indeed doubt whether any other conclusion could be reached.

Their Lordships will accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed.