Viswanatha Sastri, J.-In Referred Case No. 55 of 1946 two questions have been referred to this Court for our opinion:

“(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case and on the evidence and correspondence produced, the firm of Talipatigala Estate could be held to be controlled and managed in British India and is therefore resident and ordinarily resident in British India under section 4-A of the Indian Income-tax Act?

(2) Whether the proceedings under section 34 could be initiated against a firm which was not assessed previously when one of the partners of the firm had been individually assessed on his share in the firm?”

In Referred Case No. 56 of 1946 it is the first of the two questions above stated that has been referred to us for our opinion.

The facts common to both these references are these. Talipatigala, a rubber estate in Ceylon, was purchased by three persons some years ago and during the relevant period was owned by two of the original purchasers, the third having conveyed his interest to the others on 10th May, 1941. At one stage of the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was contended that the two individuals who now own the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document