1955 (12) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a "non-resident" for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. He was a partner of a firm at Singapore. The finding of the Income-tax Officer was that the petitioner, who was a resident in the taxable territories, received during the year of account ending with 31st December, 1947, a sum of Rs. 10,217 which constituted the remittances by her husband from Singapore. On this sum the petitioner was assessed to income-tax. One of the contentions of the petitioner before the taxing authorities was that these were not remittances to her at all but constituted remittances made by her husband to one Mohammad Yousuff, with directions to pay over the amounts to Abdulla's mother and sisters for their maintenance. The contention was negatived by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taxable territories to the wife." The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the definition of "income" in section 2(6C) of the Act. But that definition, of course, does not affect the question of legislative competence to enact section 4(2). The issue of legislative competence has to be decided with reference to entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 : "Taxes on income other than agricultural income." The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that what section 4(2) purports to tax is remittance. We are unable to agree. What it purports to tax is income. That portion of the non-resident's income, which is remitted to his wife resident within the taxable territories, is de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... we pointed out, it was a tax on income. It enacted a legal fiction to shift the incidence of taxation from the non-resident husband to the wife, who is resident in the taxable territories. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned section offended article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel urged that the wife alone of a non-resident was singled out for purposes of taxation. Remittances sent by a non-resident to any person other than his wife would not come within the scope of section 4(2). The defence to the charge of apparent discrimination was, of course, reasonable classification. To justify reasonable classification, the impugned provision should bear a just and true relation to the....