TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1934 (6) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved with a notice under Section 22(2), Income Tax Act, to furnish a return of his income in the prescribed form. At the date of his death the time for furnishing that return had not expired and no return had been made. The return required was for the year 1st April 1929 to 31st March 1930; but that return should have been based upon the income of the previous year, that is to say, in this particular case the income for the year commencing 1st October 1927 and ending 30th September 1928, that being the Fasli year which governed the making up of accounts of the Maharajadhiraj's estate. 4. Now it seems to be accepted, at any rate for the purpose of this case it must be accepted, that in the ordinary way a deceased person's estate ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....behind because the Commissioner of Income Tax misdirected himself in point of law and therefore that there was not here a succession "in such capacity" - that is, a succession by a person carrying on the business. The moment you so find, the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax that the business was being carried ought, it is maintained, to be displaced. 7. The way in which it is put is this: The Maharajadhiraj carried on apparently a number of businesses, including that of a mill owner, but his main business appears to have been the business of money-lending. The onus, says the appellant, is on the Crown to show under the sub-section that not only did the appellant succeed to the business, but that he carried it on. It is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at that is a fair inference to be drawn from the language. The Commissioner of Income Tax is weighing the factors which in his opinion are relevant to be considered for the purpose of determining the question whether or not the business was being carried on, and he is not saying that the appellant must show it was discontinued or that the fact of the loans not having been called in is conclusive that the business was being carried on. That being so, it seems to their Lordships that the point of misdirection fails and that the matter must be considered on the footing that there was a business being carried on by the late Maharajadhiraj, that the appellant succeeded to it and that having succeeded to it he carried it on. Now the second point ....