RM.P.RM.P. Valliappa Chettiar vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—The assessee carried on a money-lending business at Kualalampur in the Federated Malay States at all

times material to this reference. In the course of the moneylending business immovable properties had been acquired and one of the questions was

whether the assessee was liable to excess profits tax in respect of that income. He also owned rubber estates in the Federated Malay States and

the further question was raised whether he was liable to excess profits tax in respect of that income. The Excess, Profits Tax Authorities and the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, held that he was assessable to excess profits in respect of both these sources of income. At the

request of the assessee the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following question:

Where in the circumstances of the case, it is correct to include in the profits of the assessee''s business, the income from the house Properties and

rubber gardens in Malaya u/s 2(5) and 2(19) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, read with the first schedule to the said Act.

In the course of his address to the Court, Mr. Rajah Ayyar on behalf of the assessee suggested that the house property in Kualalampur was not

acquired in the course of the money-leading business but represented investments in real estate which his father had entered into. This assertion is

obviously one which we cannot take into consideration. Before the Excess Profits Tax Officer the case proceeded on the basis that the houses had

been acquired the money-lending business. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was apparently said that this was not in accordance

with the facts and he was asked to review the case on the basis that the nouses merely represented investments. The Appellate Assistant

Commissioner rigntly said that it was far too late in the day to raise such a contention and the assessment proceeded on the same basis as it had

proceeded on before the Excess Profits Tax Officer. As far as we can gather, this question was not raised before the Appellate Tribunal. In any

event it cannot be raised here.

In A.S.P.L.V.R. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, a Social Bench of this Court held that rents derived from

properties taken over in discharge of loans made in the course of a foreign-money-lending business and treated as assest of the business could be

assessed as part of the profits of that business when remitted to British India.Therefore the income derived from the houses now held by the

assessee represented profits made by him in his business and conse-quently he is liable to excess profits tax by reason of the provisions of Section

2(5) and 2(19) read with Rule 4(2) of schedule I of the Act.

Mr. Rajah Ayyar suggested that the decision of this Court in S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1944)

1 M.L.J. 419 had in effect overruled A.S.P.L.V.R. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, This is, however, not the case. In

S.N.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1944) 1 M.L.J. 419, the Court was merely concerned with the

question whether an assessee was to be assessed to Income Tax respect of the income from house property abroad as representing the profits of a

business u/s 10 or merely as income from house property u/s 9. It was held that inview of the amendment of the Income tax Act in 1939 the

assement should be made u/s 9. The question there was quite a different one from that with which the Court is now concerned.

The Income Tax Tribunal was also right in confirming the assessment of the assessee to excess profits tax in repect of the income derived from

his rubber estates abroad. This income represented income from business. In R.M.S.T. Ponnuswami Pillai v. The Commissioner of Income Tax,

Madras, 3 I.T.C. 378 a special Bench of this Court held that the income from a tea estate carried on in Ceylon represented profits and gains can

be no difference in principle between a tea estate and a rubber estate. In both cases the raw product has to go through some process of

manufacture before being placed on the market.

Consequently the answer which we give to the reference is that it is correct to include in the profits of the assessee''s business the income from

his house properties and rubber gardens in Malaya u/s 2(5) and 2(19) of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with the first schedule to the said Act.

The assessee must pay the costs of this reference, Rs. 250.