A M M SAYED ABDUL CADER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellate Tribunal referred to us the following question under Section 66 (l), Income-tax Act:

(2.) THE section quoted above requires in order to constitute residence in British India two things; firstly the assessee should have lived for a period amounting in all to 365 days or more, in British India, within the four years preceding the year of account; secondly, that he should be in British India for any time during that period otherwise than on an occasional or casual visit. So far as the first requirement of the section is concerned it is undoubtedly satisfied in the present case as he lived in British India for more than 365 days within the period of 4 years preceding the year of account. THE controversy relates to the second requirement namely whether his visit to British India in 1942 was occasional or casual? THE Appellate Tribunal as well as the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner have found that in the circumstances of the case the visit was not an occasional or a casual one and that, therefore, the second requirement was also satisfied and that the assessee was a resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4-A (a) (iii) of the Act.

(3.) THE appellate tribunal was also of opinion that when the assessee left Ceylon he could not have in mind that his stay would be temporary one or for a short time; and this may be inferred from the fact that ha took up a house in order to establish his residence at Tuticorin. In my opinion, the test applied by the appellate tribunal to conclude that the visit was not a casual one is correct and the inference also was justified.