ANDIAPPAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petitions Nos. 1030 and 1031 of 1963. Therein in the petitioners invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of the Respondents wherein he was not granted the abatement he sought to obtain in the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to any more abatement than that was given by the authorities under the 'Assessment (Agreement ) for Relief or for Avoidance of Double Taxation in India and Ceylon' which will be hereinafter referred to as the "agreement". It accordingly dismissed the Writ Petitions but gave a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India certifying that this is a fit case for appeal to this Court.

(2.) The appellant is a resident in this country. But he is carrying on business in Ceylon. During the assessment year 1959-60 he earned a gross income of Rs. 39,473/- and in the assessment year 1960-61 he earned a gross income of Rs. 39,067/-. He had only a house in India whose annual rental value was Rs. 38/-. The entire assessable income of his was that what he earned in Ceylon. On his income in Ceylon, he was taxed in a sum of Rs. 5,919/- for the assessment year 1959-60 and in a sum of Rs. 6,036/- for the assessment year 1960-61. For the same income in India under the Indian Law his tax was computed for the assessment year 1959-60 at Rupees 10,282.62 P and for the assessment year 1960-61 at Rs. 9,521.35 P. The tax payable by him in Ceylon was given as abatement and he was called upon to pay only the balance. The tax payable by him in Ceylon as a non-resident would have been Rs. 9,889/- in the assessment year 1959-60 and Rs. 9,983/- in the assessment year 1960-61. But in view of section 45(2) of the Ceylon Income Tax Ordinance, 1932 and also in view of the 'Agreement' he was taxed as if he was a resident in Ceylon.

(3.) Two questions arising for decisions are whether he was not liable to be taxed at all in India and if he was liable to be taxed in India, what should have been the proper abatement given to him.