COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GOKULDAS HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two questions of law in this reference. The questions are referred to this Court by the Tribunal at the instance of the Department. The questions read thus :

(2.) THE assessees are individuals. The assessment years involved are 1959 60 and 1960 61. They have been partners in the firm styled Damodar Anandji which had income from business in India and also income arising or accruing in Portuguese East Africa. The assessments were made and demands were raised. The demands were subsequently revised but that aspect of the matter is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue before us.

(3.) IT is submitted before us by Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, that the Tribunal did not appreciate the purport and the scope of S. 91(1) of the IT Act, 1961, correctly. The plain meaning of the provision was stated to be that the double income tax relief was in respect of the foreign income and the provisions for not treating the assessees as in default under S. 220(7) were also in respect of tax due on foreign income and that, therefore, the provisions of S. 220(7) would operate in respect of tax due as reduced by the amount of double income tax relief. In support of his contention, Dr. Balasubramanian placed reliance on the Madras High Court's decisions in M. M. Muthuwappa vs. Addl. ITO (1952) 21 ITR 344 (Mad) : TC52R.308 and S. Manickam Chettiar vs. ITO (1976) 104 ITR 283 (Mad) : TC52R.320.