COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PAPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is the widow of the late Raja Ramanatha Reddiar, and is the administratirx of his estate. Chidambaram Reddiar, the father of Raja Ramanathan Reddir, founded a business in Rangoon and this was carried on by his ons after his death. THE late Raja died in Rangoon in 1932, possessed of large assets some of which were in Burma and some in the Madras Presidency. THE assets in the Madras Presidency included immpoveable property in the Trichnopoly District. Raja Ramanatha Reddiar lad previously married one Parvathi Ammal, who in 1915 purchased a house in Srirangam. This house has been regarded as during her occasional visitis to the Presidency. She stayed there in 1934, 1936 and agai 1937, each time making a stay of more than three months. For the year of assessment 1939-40 the assessee made a return of the income of the estate to the Income-tax Officer, Salem, and in this she showed an income of Rs. 65,276 from money-lending in British India and Rs. 14,950 as remittance of profits brought into British India from Rangoon. She conternded that she was not resident in British India, but this contrntion the Income-tax Officer overruled. He held that she was resident in British India within the manning of Section 4-A (a) (ii) was held to apply as she had maintained a dewlling house in Srirangam throught the year previous to the year of assessment. It was held that Section 4-A (a) (ii) applied because she had been in Rangoon for a period amounting to more than 365 days in the year preceding the year of account. Burma was pare of British India until the 1st April 1937 when it became separatr by reason of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. THE Income-tax Officer further holed that the assessee was ordinarily resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4-B as she had been in Rangoon in nine our of the ten year preceding the year of account and as she had also been in Rangoon for a period amounting to more than two years in the seven years preceding that year. THE result was that the Income-tax Officer assessed the assessee for the year 1939-40 on a total income of Rs. 1,15,180 of which Rs. 70,458 was regarded as income earned in British India and Rs. 44,722 as income eraned in Burma.

(2.) THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer, and at the reauest of the assessee the Commissioner had referred to this Court under the provisions of Section 66 (2) the following question :-

(3.) THIS statement leaves it open to the Court to examine the Incom-tax Act an find out what it meant by the term British India in Section 4B of the Incom-tax Act, and in these circumstances regard must be had to what is said in Section 3 of the General Clauses Act. Section 3 (7) of that Act says :-