1957 (3) TMI 59 - DSC - Income Tax

Taxpayer's appeal dismissed as deposit of lb2,000,000 constituted income addition.

The court dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the deposit of lb2,000,000 into the taxpayer's account constituted an addition to a source of ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the taxpayer acquired a new source or an addition to a source of income when he deposited lb2,000,000 into his deposit account.2. The correct method of computing income tax for the years 1951-1952 and 1952-1953.3. Applicability of section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951, and section 30 of the Finance Act, 1926, to the taxpayer's income.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: New Source or Addition to a Source of IncomeThe primary issue was whether the taxpayer acquired a new source or an addition to a source of income when he deposited lb2,000,000 into his deposit account on March 17, 1951. The taxpayer contended that this deposit did not constitute a new source or an addition to a source of income within the meaning of section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951, or section 30 of the Finance Act, 1926. The Crown argued that the deposit did constitute a new source or an addition to a source of income chargeable under Case III of Schedule D.The commissioners found that the source of income was the contractual relationship between the taxpayer and the bank, which began when the taxpayer first opened his deposit account. They concluded that the taxpayer did not acquire a new source of income when he made the deposit on March 17, 1951. The court, however, held that the source of income was the deposit of money upon the terms of the contract, and that the deposit of lb2,000,000 constituted an addition to a source of income.Issue 2: Method of Computing Income TaxThe correct method of computing income tax for the years 1951-1952 and 1952-1953 was disputed. The taxpayer argued that income tax should be computed on the preceding year basis in accordance with paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Rules applicable to Case III of Schedule D to the Income Tax Act, 1918. Alternatively, if the deposit constituted a new source or an addition to a source of income, the taxpayer contended that income first arose therefrom prior to April 6, 1951, and therefore, section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951, was not applicable. The Crown maintained that income first arose from the deposit after April 6, 1951, specifically on June 20, 1951, when the interest was credited to the taxpayer's account, and that income tax was properly computed by reference to section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951.The court agreed with the Crown, holding that the income first arose on June 20, 1951, when the interest was credited. Consequently, the income tax for the years in question was to be computed in accordance with section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951.Issue 3: Applicability of Finance Act ProvisionsThe applicability of section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951, and section 30 of the Finance Act, 1926, was also examined. The taxpayer argued that neither section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951, nor section 30 of the Finance Act, 1926, applied to the income in question. The Crown contended that section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951, was applicable because the taxpayer acquired a new source or an addition to a source of income on March 17, 1951, and income first arose therefrom after April 6, 1951.The court held that section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951, was applicable, as the deposit of lb2,000,000 constituted an addition to a source of income, and income first arose from this addition on June 20, 1951. Therefore, the income tax was properly computed by reference to section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951.Conclusion:The court dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, agreeing with the Crown's contention that the deposit of lb2,000,000 into the taxpayer's deposit account constituted an addition to a source of income and that income first arose from this addition on June 20, 1951. Consequently, the income tax for the years 1951-1952 and 1952-1953 was to be computed in accordance with section 21 of the Finance Act, 1951. The court emphasized that the source of income was the deposit of money upon the terms of the contract, and not merely the contractual relationship itself. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.