TMI Blog1964 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chartered Bank, Amritsar. One of the drafts was for ₹ 21,752 in the name of the assessee and the other was for ₹ 9,553 in the name of his wife. The assessee arrived in India on the 8th/ 9th March, 1948. The drafts were cashed on the 26th April, 1948. The department assessed the assessee under section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the assessment year 1948-49, the accounting period being the financial year ending 31st March, 1948. It is not necessary to go into the various contentions of the assessee raised before the department as we are only concerned with one of them. That contention is: Whether the aforesaid income can be treated as having been brought into India in the assessment year 1948-49? The claim of the assessee is that this income was brought into India in the subsequent year, i.e., the assessment year 1949-50. The basis for this argument is that as the drafts were cashed on the 26th April, 1948, i.e., during the accounting period of the subsequent year, the amount in question was only liable to be taxed in the subsequent year and not in the assessment year 1948-49. In other words, the short question that calls f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re brought into or received in the taxable territories by him during such year, or... 5. The very fact that the legislature has used the words received and brought in would show that receiving is not the same thing as bringing in . 6. So far as the present case is concerned, this distinction would be meaningless in view of the observations of Mr. Justice Wanchoo in Dharamdas Hargovandas's case (supra). At page 433 of the report, while dealing with an argument raised by Mr. Pathak that the word received in clause (b)(iii) of the aforesaid section should receive the same interpretation as in clause (a) and, therefore, the receipt in clause (b)(iii) must also be the first receipt, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with this argument, observed: These words (are received) however are not terms of art and in our opinion their meaning must receive colour from the context in which they are used. In the context of clause (a) these words could only refer to the first receipt; but it does not follow from this that in the context of clause (b)(iii) also they refer only to the first receipt. 7. While considering clause (b)(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han the previous year and may have also been received there. Any other interpretation would really make that part of clause (b)(iii) which refers to 'received in the taxable territories ' more or less useless, for it is not likely that income having accrued or arisen outside the taxable territories before the previous year should not have been received also outside the taxable territories. Therefore, the reasonable interpretation of clause (b)(iii) is that if a person resident in the taxable territories has already received without the taxable territories any income, etc., accruing or arising to him without the taxable territories before the previous year brings that income into or receives that income in the taxable territories he would be chargeable to income-tax under section 3. Therefore, for the purpose of clause (b)(iii) the receiving in the taxable territories need not be the first receipt. 8. In the present case, either the money was received or was brought in and the only question that we are called upon to determine is: At what point of time it was received or brought in? On the analogy of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ogale Glass Works' case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay and brought the draft from Bhavnagar to Bombay and cashed it there. Again, there would be little doubt that he had, by this process, brought the income into Bombay. It is well known that though income in income-tax law is generally contemplated in terms of money, it may be conceived in other forms. In fact anything which represents and produces money and is treated as such by businessmen, would be income: see per Lord Lindley in Gresham Life Assurance Society Ltd. v. Bishop [1902] AC 287, 296 and per Lord Halsbury L.C. in Tennant v. Smith [1892] AC 150, 156. If the bringing of the bank draft would be bringing of income, I am unable to see why the bringing of a right to receive the money would not be bringing of income when that right has been exercised and turned into money's worth. Such a right would be based on a promise by the debtor to pay and, though verbal, would be considered by businessmen to represent money. The assessee in Bombay used that right and obtained money's worth. He accepted the Bhavnagar concern's cheque in Bombay, gave it a pro tanto discharge for the debt owing by it to him. He used the cheque in acquiring a new asset, namely, a promise by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis, namely, that the money was received in the taxable territories, the receipt or the bringing in would be when the assessee entered the taxable territory with the drafts in his pocket. This is the view that the Appellate Tribunal has taken and we see no error in that view. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon Forbes v. Scottish Provident Institution [1895] 3 Tax Cas. 443, Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Bishop 1, Hall v. Marians [1935] 19 Tax Cas. 582, Wild v. King Smith [1941] 24 Tax Cas. 8, Manickam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1937] 5 ITR 534, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. [1938] 6 ITR 3, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Seth Mathuradas Mohta [1939] 7 ITR 160, Keshav Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1953] 23 ITR 230; [1953] SCR 950 and Ogale Glass Works' case (supra). None of these cases is of any assistance to the learned counsel. It is admitted by him that there is no case directly dealing with the point involved. The result, therefore, is that the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. However, in view of the difficult nature of the question involved and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
