(1.) The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is : "In what year was the remittance of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand) received?"
(2.) This question arises in connection with an additional assessment imposed upon the petitioner for the year 1930-1931 with respect to this amount. The accounting year is the period from 13 April, 1929, to 12 April, 1930. The question is whether this amount may be considered to have been received by the assessee during this period in the following circumstances.
(3.) The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetti doing business in Burma, Klang, Kualalumpur, Penang, etc. On 3 April, 1929, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was debited to his account in his Klang books as having been paid on that date to S.A. Rm. Penang, a money-lending business owned by another Nattukottai Chetti. The entry does not say in what connection this amount was paid. But it is admitted that it relates to the purchase of house-sites by the petitioner. He was negotiating for the purchase of certain house-sites adjoining his house at Kanadu-kathan which belonged to S.A. RraAn agreement to sell land was entered into between the petitioner and S.A. Rra. on 5 April, 1929. The sale deed was executed on a later date, on 8 May, 1929. The payment of Rs. 50,000 made on 3 April, 1929, was, it may be mentioned, not shown in the accounts of the petitioner as remittance to him in that year. If that was so shown, we may take it that the Income-tax authorities would have assessed him for that amount for the year 1929-1930. On these facts, it was contended by the petitioner that he cannot be taxed under Section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act for that sum of Rs. 50,000 on the ground that he has received that amount during the accounting period, his case being that he could be considered to have received that amount only on 3 April, 1929, and not at a later date. Of course, there is no transfer of money in this case, it being understood that the profits were received in the shape of two house-sites. The Income-tax authorities decided that the profits could be said to have been received only on 8 May, 1929, when the sale deed was executed and not earlier.