9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (5) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of the Hindu undivided family and not that of Seth Sobhagmal Lodha ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a previous year different from the Diwali year could be adopted in respect of the income from the managing agency commission and allowance subject to tax on (a) ' accrual basis ' and (b) ' receipt basis ' ? (3) Whether the amount said to have been received in British India in the previous year could be treated as income accruing or arising without British India in the same year and whether under section 4(1)(b)(iii) such amounts could be treated as assessable income for the assessment year ? and (4) Whether the sums of Rs. 2, 48,341 and Rs. 2, 39,070 were rightly treated as, received by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived as commission and salary for the year 1942 was claimed by Sobhagmal Lodha to be his individual income and not income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta. This claim was rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the income was held to belong to the Hindu undivided family. The plea of the assessee that these two sums were not brought into or received in the taxable territories was also rejected and they were subjected to tax. In accordance with the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, there was a third sum of Rs. 3,48,080 which accrued as commission and salary for the calendar year 1943. It was held that this income accrued or arose during the calendar year 1943 and was therefore taxable in the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Diwali year. The assessee only disputed the right of the income-tax department to treat the calendar year as the previous year for the income from commission and salary. It was urged by learned counsel for the assessee before us that the income from commission and salary should be treated as income from the same source from which the assessee was earning other income in respect of which the previous year was the Diwali year, because all the income was from the source of business. The argument is not correct. Business as such is not treated under the Income-tax Act as a source of income but it is classified as one of the heads of income enumerated in section 6 of the Act. Within the same head of income, there can be various sources and sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y application was ever made by the assessee for changing that previous year. Consequently, question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. So far as the third question is concerned, it only relates to two amounts, viz. the sum of Rs. 2,39,070 received as commission and salary for the year 1942 and the sum of Rs. 2,48,341 received as income from dividends on the shares of the textile mills. The question asked is whether these two sums, which were received in British India in the previous year, could be treated as income accruing or arising without British India in the same year and whether under section 4(1)(b)(iii) such amount could be treated as assessable income for the relevant assessment year. As regards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rued or arisen in the calendar year 1942. Consequently, the first part of the question relating to this amount of Rs. 2, 39,070 has to be answered by saying that this sum received in British India in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1944-45 accrued or arose to the assessee outside British India not in the same previous year but in the earlier previous year which was the calendar year 1942. Both these amounts, Rs. 2, 39,070 and Rs. 2, 48,341, have been held to have been brought into British India or received in British India during the months of May and June, 1943. If they are held to have been received during that period and, as we have held earlier, they were income which had accrued outside British India, these amounts c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact. The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal shows that the Tribunal relied on the following facts and circumstances to record this finding of fact. [His Lordship referred to the facts and continued:] These six facts which we have enumerated above having been found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we consider that there was material before the Tribunal for recording a finding that these two items of Rs. 2, 48,341 and Rs. 2, 39,070 were brought into British India or received by the assessee at Ajmer within the meaning of section 4(1) and, consequently, also within the meaning of section 14(2) (c) of the Income-tax Act. The question No. 4 is, therefore, also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Let the record be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
