9911796707
TMI Blog1948 (9) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee of the firm from 1st January, 1942, to 9th October, 1942, was determined at ₹ 41,000. By reason of Section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the firm of S.B. Billimoria Co., was not charged to any tax in respect of the period 1st January, 1942, to 9th October, 1942, and the Department concedes that on the sum of ₹ 41,000 received by Mr. Raiji no tax is payable. But what the Department contends is that the sum of ₹ 41,000 must be included in the total income of Mr. Raiji for the assessment year 1943-44 in order to determine the rate at which income-tax is payable by him. That is the first question that is submitted to us and which we have to decide. Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. Total income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, and it means total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Therefore, it would be erroneous to suggest that total income is to be determined only in the light of Section 4, sub-section (3), of the Act. How total income is to be computed and determined depends upon the various provisions contained in the Act as a whole. Then we might look at various sections which provide for exemptions from the payment of tax. There is Section 7 which contains various provisos which cover sums not liable to tax. Similarly Section 8. Section 14 also contains exemptions with regard to certain sum on which no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not to form part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. When the Legislature intends that certain sums, although not liable to tax, should be included in the total income, it expressly so provides, as it is done in section 16, and therefore prima facie when we come to section 25(4) and when we find that the assessee is not liable to pay tax on the sums received by him as his share if the partnership, that sum cannot and does not form part of his total income. Mr. Joshi has not succeeded in pointing out to us any provisions in the Act where by this particular sum covered by section 25(4) has been made a part of the total income of the assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, the share of the profit of the assessee in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion assumes and admits that there is a liability on the assessee to pay super-tax. The only question which is in dispute is on which amount super-tax should be paid, and therefore, however interesting the question may be, we refuse to be drawn into a controversy as to the correct position in law as to the liability of the assessee to pay any super-tax. The dispute as to the two amounts arises in this way. According to the partnership deed, the share of the assessee at the date of the dissolution would have amounted to ₹ 28,686. In fact, under the consent decree passed in this Court, he received ₹ 41,000. It is difficult to understand how the sum of ₹ 28,686 is in any way material or relevant when in fact, and as his share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
