Residency and jurisdiction rules under income tax upheld, with machinery provisions and assessment validity sustained.

Section 4-A(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a valid machinery provision: the Bombay HC held that the Legislature could deem company residence and allocate income for tax purposes, and the provision was not invalid merely because it had incidental extra-territorial effect where a sufficient territorial nexus existed. The court also held that the amended provision applied to the assessee's 1939-40 assessment by reference to the relevant previous year, without impermissible retrospectivity. On jurisdiction, the Additional Income-tax Officer was found competent under section 64(1) because the assessee was linked to a Bombay firm carrying on business in the relevant area. The challenge failed and the assessment stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 4-A(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, treating a company as resident in British India when its income arising in British India exceeded its income arising without British India, was ultra vires. (ii) Whether that provision applied to the assessee's assessment for 1939-40. (iii) Whether the Additional Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to make the assessment under section 64.

Issue (i): Whether section 4-A(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, treating a company as resident in British India when its income arising in British India exceeded its income arising without British India, was ultra vires.

Analysis: The provision was examined in the setting of the charging scheme of the Act and the legislative competence conferred by the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court held that the Indian Legislature had power to impose income-tax and to frame machinery rules determining residence and the source of income for that purpose. The sub-section was not invalid merely because it had some extra-territorial effect, since the Act contained no general prohibition against legislation with such effect and the provision rested on a sufficient territorial connection with British India.

Conclusion: Section 4-A(c) was held to be intra vires and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether that provision applied to the assessee's assessment for 1939-40.

Analysis: The Court held that the relevant inquiry was the previous year for the assessment year 1939-40. The amended provision governed the ascertainment of the previous year's income for the current assessment, and no impermissible retrospectivity arose. The finding of residence for the previous year was sufficient for application of the provision.

Conclusion: The provision was held applicable to the assessee's assessment for 1939-40.

Issue (iii): Whether the Additional Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to make the assessment under section 64.

Analysis: Since the assessee was found to be a partner in the Bombay firm and the firm carried on business in the relevant area, the assessment fell within section 64(1), which vests jurisdiction in the Income-tax Officer of the area where the place of business is situate. The alternative question under section 64(2) did not arise.

Conclusion: The Officer was held to have jurisdiction under section 64(1).

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, the assessee's challenge to the validity and application of section 4-A(c) failed, and the assessment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislature has power to tax income, it may validly enact machinery provisions deeming residence and allocating income for tax purposes, even if those provisions have incidental extra-territorial effect, so long as the legislation rests on a sufficient territorial nexus and is not expressly prohibited.

---