TMI Blog1951 (4) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 26th of October, 1943. It has been found as a fact that at the time of disruption the joint family was carrying on three separate businesses, one of money-lending, secondly of running a ginning factory and lastly a share business. It is also found as a fact that only the money-lending business had paid tax under the Income-tax Act of 1918. On these facts the assessee claims the concessions laid down in Section 25(4) on the ground that his business had been succeeded to by others and therefore he was entitled to the benefits mentioned in that sub-section. Now the contention of the Commissioner is that the concessions in Section 25(4) are to be given to a particular business which was assessed to tax under the Act of 1918 and the relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the particular business when was succeeded to by another person. Frankly the use of the expression income, profits and gains creates considerable difficulty in properly construing this sub-section. If we were to give the construction for which Sir Jamshedji contends it would lead to most absurd conclusions and consequences. It is obvious that the policy of the Legislature in enacting Section 25, sub-sections (3) and (4), was to prevent double taxation and the relief which was intended to be given was to a particular business that had paid tax under the Act of 1918 and which had paid a further tax under the new Act. Having paid tax twice a relief was intended to be given to that business when that business was succeeded to by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion or vocation were assessed to super-tax for the first time either for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1920, or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1921 . Therefore, here we have the expression income, profits and gains used in juxtaposition with business, profession or vocation and there can be no doubt as for as this provision is concerned that what the Legislature was providing for was the profits and gains of the business, profession or vocation contemplated by Section 10. It is true that the expression income is very loosely used. Had the Legislature been careful they would only have used the expression profits and gains . But the very fact that in the proviso they have used income, profits and g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or vocation. No authority was really necessary in support of this construction but we find that the High Court of Orissa has in the case of Nopram Ramgopal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa [1951] 19 ITR 219 , taken the view that it is the business which was in existence and which had been assessed to tax under the Act of 1918 and not the person who is entitled to this relief. Even the High Court of Allahabad has in the case of Gopi Mohan and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P, and C.P. [1947] 15 ITR 220, in construing Section 25(3) (where also the expression income, profits and gains occurs) has construed that sub-section as relating to that head of income, which had been dealt with in Section 10, and as quite distinct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
