9911796707
TMI Blog1932 (8) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich at the material times it is alleged by the assessee earned no profits at all, and he is also a partner in another money-lending business with other persons which did result in a profit at the material times. In 1926 sums of money amounting to ₹ 4,10,000 were sent from Ipoh to Rangoon to the petitioner there, the last sum being a sum received in December, 1926. In the Rangoon books there is a ledger account for Ipoh and in Ipoh there is a ledger account for Rangoon and money passing from one place to the other is set out in the respective ledger accounts. The Income-tax authorities assessed that sum of ₹ 4,10,000 received from Ipoh by the petitioner in Rangoon to income-tax as being a remittance of foreign profits to British ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the money sent from Rangoon to Ipoh was in fact the money sent from Ipoh to Rangoon the previous year. We are dealing with this reference merely on the assumption that it was. The assessee's endeavour here and before the Income-tax Commissioner was to show that the ₹ 91,262 odd sent from Ipoh to Rangoon with which to pay the income-tax levied came out of the tax-paid or tax-free fund in his hands at Ipoh. Had he been able to prove any such thing as that, then, in our opinion, he would have been entitled to maintain that, as the fund had already been taxed, this sum of ₹ 91,262 odd could not be taxed again because that sum has been assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Commissioner as a remittance received in British Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remitted; on the 11th March 1927, a sum of ₹ 77,500, equivalent to $50,000 was remitted; and finally on the 28th March 1927, a sum of ₹ 60,000 equivalent to $38,799, was remitted, making a total of ₹ 4,08,662. Let us see how these sums of money were dealt with and the dates upon which they were. On the 17th February 1927, the same date on which the sum of $50,000 was received, an identical sum was advanced to a constituent; on the 26th February 1927 the date on which the sum of $65,000 was received, similarly an identical sum was lent out to somebody in Penang; on the 4th March, 1927, the same date on which the sum of $60,000 was received, a sum of $59,000 was advanced to a constituent and a sum of $1,000 was advanced to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of it. In support of this contention a passage in the judgment of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, in Sugden v. Leeds Corporation 6 Tax. Case. 211. was relied upon. The passage referred to is at page 253 and it is as follows:- "If the annual payments would properly have been payable out of profits, but the person bound to make them has chosen to defray them out of some other source of income, this does not affect his right to retain the amount of tax he has deducted". We are told that in that case the Leeds Corporation in their books of account had shown that sums of money had been paid out of certain sources of income, that they had the right to make the payments out of another fund or another source of income and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee here would be to say that where a person has two funds in his possession one of them being a fund which has been subjected to income-tax and the other being a fund which remains to be taxed, the presumption that any remittance he makes is out of the one already subjected to tax can never be rebutted, or it is an irrebuttable presumption. That of course cannot possibly be the law. In this case even if that presumption had arisen, it would be clearly rebutted by the book entries of the assessee himself. In what other way can the Income-tax authorities rebut such a presumption? If they are not to be allowed to pray in aid the book entries made by the assessee himself or by his agent, it is very difficult to see how they can possibly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
