I.T. Commr. vs Annamalai

Leach, C.J.—In the statement of the case made by the Appellate Tribunal it is suggested that the Commissioner of Income Tax has

misunderstood the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and stated in its order of 9th February 1943. We do not think that there has been any

misapprehension on the part of the Commissioner, but in any event the facts are clear. Until 28th March 1939 the assessee was joint with his

father. The family carried on a money lending business in the Federated Malay States. On separation, the assessee received as his share of the

family assets the business which the family had carried on in the Federated Malay States. Between 1st April 1933 and. the date of partition this

business had earned considerable profits, all of which accrued to the assessee under the partition. Between 28th March 1939 and 12th April 1939

the assessee brought to British India Rs. 40,742 of the accumulated profits and the Income Tax Officer decided that he was liable u/s 4(1) (b) (iii),

Income Tax Act, to pay the tax on this amount. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed with the Income Tax Officer and held that the

assessee was not liable. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. At the request of the Commissioner of Income

Tax, the Tribunal has referred for the opinion of this Court the following question : ""Whether in the circumstances of the case the respondent is

liable on the remittance of a sum of Rs. 40,742 brought by him into British India during the accounting year."" Section 4 (1) (b) (iii) reads as follows

: ""Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of any person includes all income, profits and gains from whatever

source derived which having accrued or arisen to him without British India before the beginning of such year and after the 1st April 1933, are

brought into or received in British India by him during such year."" In accepting the case for the assessee, the Tribunal laid stress on the word ""him

and considered that as these profits had been earned by the joint family, he could not be assessed in respect of them. We consider that this is not a

correct reading of the section. Under it a person is liable to pay the tax on income from whatever source derived which has accrued to him after

1st April 1933, and has been brought by him into British India. It is true that the profits were actually earned by the joint family, a different entity

for the purpose of taxation, but on 28th March 1939 the assessee acquired the business and all the profits which had been earned between 1st

April 1933 and that date. According to the Oxford dictionary a primary meaning of the word ""accrue"" is ""to come by way of addition or increase,

or as an accession or advantage."" By reason of the arrangement with his father the assessee instead of being a sharer in the business became the

absolute owner thereof. Thereby the profits accrued to him in his own right and it was he who brought them into British India. The acceptance of

the assessee''s interpretation would mean, as Mr. Sesha Aiyengar has pointed out, that the tax could never be collected on profits earned by a

person resident in this country but trading abroad if he transferred his profits to another before they were brought into British India. We cannot

accept such a construction. We hold that the profits accrued to the assessee within the meaning of the section and as he brought them into British

India he must pay the tax on them. We answer the question by stating that the respondent is liable to pay the tax on the sum of Rs. 40,742 brought

by him into British India during the accounting year. The Commissioner has succeeded and is entitled to his costs Rs. 250.