JANAB JAMEELAMMA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question debated before us in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Income-tax Officer, Nagapattinam, was the validity of Section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act.

(2.) THE petitioner is the wife of one Mohammad Abdulla, who was admittedly a "non-resident" for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. He was a partner of a firm at Singapore. THE finding of the Income-tax Officer was that the petitioner, who was a resident in the taxable territories, received during the year of account ending with 31st December, 1947, a sum of Rs. 10,217 which constituted the remittances by her husband from Singapore. On this sum the petitioner was assessed to income-tax.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the definition of income in Section 2(6-c) of the Act. But that definition, of course, does not affect the question of legislative competence to enact Section 4(2).