Business connection and agent liability under income tax law require receipt on behalf of the non-resident before assessment can be imposed.

Systematic lending operations carried on through Bombay were treated as business carried on in British India, so the interest income from those transactions was held to accrue or arise there under the charging scheme of the 1922 Act. However, although the Bombay company had a business connection with the non-resident Hongkong company, it could not be assessed as its agent unless it was in receipt of the income on behalf of the non-resident. Sections 40, 42(1) and 43 were read together, but the wider class of possible agents did not remove the statutory requirement of receipt on behalf of the non-resident. The Bombay company was only a borrower and debtor, so agent assessment failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the non-resident Hongkong company was carrying on an assessable business in British India and whether its income from lending transactions accrued or arose in British India; (ii) whether the Bombay company could be assessed as the agent of the non-resident under Sections 40, 42(1) and 43 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether the non-resident Hongkong company was carrying on an assessable business in British India and whether its income from lending transactions accrued or arose in British India.

Analysis: The lending operations were carried on systematically in Bombay. Offers were made to Bombay, accepted there, the advances were made there, and the interest was earned there. On those facts the activity amounted to business carried on in British India, and the resulting income accrued or arose in British India within the charging scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: Yes. The Hongkong company carried on an assessable business in British India and the income from the lending transactions accrued or arose there.

Issue (ii): Whether the Bombay company could be assessed as the agent of the non-resident under Sections 40, 42(1) and 43 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Sections 40, 42(1) and 43 were construed together. Although Section 43 widened the class of persons who could be treated as agents, the liability under Section 40 still required receipt on behalf of the non-resident of the income sought to be taxed. The Bombay company was a borrower and debtor, not a recipient or trustee of the interest on behalf of the Hongkong company. A business connection existed, but that did not dispense with the statutory requirement of receipt on behalf of the non-resident. The court also applied the rule that a new tax burden must be expressed in clear terms.

Conclusion: No. The Bombay company could not be assessed as agent because it was not in receipt of the income on behalf of the non-resident.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered substantially in favour of the assessee, and the assessment on the Bombay company as agent of the non-resident could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the statutory extension of the class of agents for non-residents does not eliminate the requirement that the agent must be in receipt of the income on behalf of the non-resident before assessment can be levied on the agent.

---