TMI Blog1935 (9) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is whether this amount may be considered to have been received by the assessee during this period in the following circumstances. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetti doing business in Burma, Klang, Kualalumpur, Penang, etc. On 3rd April 1929, a sum of ₹ 50,000 was debited to his account in his Klang books as having been paid on that date to S.A.Rm. Penang, a money- lending business owned by another Nattukottai Chetti. The entry does not say in what connection this amount was paid. But it is admitted that it relates to the purchase of house sites by the petitioner. He was negotiating for the purchase of certain house sites adjoining his house at Kanadukathan which belonged to S.A.Rm. An agreement to sell land was entered into bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him he obtained possession of the property which would be anterior to the date of the sale deed, 8th May 1929. If that argument is accepted, of course it will not be possible to assess him for the amount for the year 1930-1931. But the Assistant Commissioner refused permission to the assessee to raise that point as it was not raised before the Income tax authorities in the first instance. The point is now raised before us and it is pressed that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to enable him to adduce evidence with a view to establish that he came into possession of the house-sites prior to 8th May 1929. It is evident on a reading of the order passed by the original taxing officer that this question was not raised befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n there is the final completion of the whole transaction by the execution of the sale deed. The simple question therefore is, when was the money received in the shape of the house-sites? In the circumstances, there can be only one answer and that is that it was received only on 8th May 1929. That date falling within the year of accounting, the assessee is liable to payment of income tax on that amount. Various other questions are sought to be raised before us, one of which is that the question arises in connection with the sale of land and not with the remittance of money. That question was not raised at any stage of the case and we are not inclined to hear new points now raised before us. In the circumstances, we hold that the money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
