Judgement

Appeal (No. 39 of 1944) from a judgment of the High Court (October 1, 1941) delivered on a reference made under s. 66, sub-s.2, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan.

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The question raised by this appeal was whether the word "discontinued" in s. 25, sub-s. 3, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 1922 Act), as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 (hereinafter called "the amending Act"), meant only a complete cessation of the business or whether it also included the case of discontinuance of the business by the person formerly carrying it on as the result of the transfer or assignment of that business to another person who thereafter carried it on. In the case under appeal the High Court at Bombay (Beaumont C.J. and Kania J.) gave the wider meaning to the word in Meyyappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (I. L. R. [ 1944]

M. 166.), the High Court at Madras gave it the narrower meaning.

The respondent, P. E. Poison, had from some date before 1918 until January 1, 1939, carried on business i