Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1941 (9) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lowing questions :- (1) Whether the assessee is resident in British India and carries on business here, and (2) Whether the assessee has been rightly taxed under the Indian Income Tax Act. The Commissioner has suggested that the answers to both these questions should be in the affirmative. The assessee is a firm which owns a business styled as Sri Hardeo Salt Company. . This firm consists of four brothers who appear to be joint, namely, Pearey Lal, Juggernath Prasad, Dwarka Prasad and Srinath Prasad. These four brother admittedly reside in Muttra in the United Provinces. The business of the firm is that of selling salt which is obtained from the Sambhar Lake in Rajputana. According to the Income Tax authorities, this firm had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first sight this would appear to be pure question of fact; but this Court asked the question because it was not clear as to the evidence upon which the Income Tax authorities had arrived at their findings. That evidence is clearly set out, and there is undoubted material to support the finding that the assessee is resident in British India. I must, however, point out that the Income Tax authorities and the Commissioner have referred to a large number of documents which cannot possibly be admissible in evidence against the assessee. However, there is a clear admission by one of the partners that the properties of the firm were the four brother here resident in Muttra. The point, however, is not of any importance by reason of the answer to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... azumdar who has argued this case very fully has contended that all that the assessee has at Muzaffarpur is a canvassing agent : but the facts which I have set out strongly suggest that the activity at Muzaffarpur is the activity of a branch of the firm and not the activity of a mere agent soliciting orders. Again the order forms used by the assessee at Muzaffarpur show that orders are accepted at Muzaffarpur and contracts for the sale and delivery of salt concluded there. It is true that these orders are sent to Rajputana, but that is inevitavble because they have to be executed at Rajputana. The salt lake is situate there and not at Muzaffarpur, and therefore, the orders must, when accepted, be transferred for execution. Mr. Mazumdar has l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view the case of Granger Son v. Willam Lane Gough (1896) A. C. 325 is clearly distiguishable from the present case. Lord Herschell in his speech at page 333 stresses the fact that the agent in the United Kingdom did not entered into any contract but merely forwarded offers to the foreign merchants) in Finance. At page 333 he states :- Taking the finding together, I think it clear that no contracts to sell wine were every made by the appellants on behalf of Roederer. All that they did was to transmit to him the orders received, and until he had agreed to comply or complied with them there was no contract. He was under no obligation to the person giving the order to the appellants to execute any one of them. In short, no contract .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Muzaffarpur, and that being so, there is abundant material upon which it can be held that the assessee carries on business in British India. Once that is held, it is obvious that the answer to the second question whether the assessee has been rightly taxed under the Indian Income Tax Act must be in the affirmative. For the reasons which I have given, I would answer both the questions in the affirmative. The assessee should, in my view, pay the cost of these proceedings. As the point involved is common to both the references, there will only be one hearing fee which I would assessee at seven gold mohurs. The sum deposited in each with the Income Tax authorities will be retained by them. FAZL ALI J. - I agree. Reference answered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates