Residence under income-tax law: business-linked visits were not casual, and the statutory presumption of residence was upheld.

For residence under section 4A(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the department had first to show the assessee's qualifying presence in British India within the preceding four years and during the relevant previous year; once shown, the burden shifted to the assessee to prove that the visits were occasional or casual. On the facts, the Tribunal relied on the assessee's prior long residence, admitted visits, inconsistent statements, business dealings with Bombay concerns, remittances to Bombay, and the absence of supporting books or correspondence to infer business-connected presence. That inference was upheld as supported by evidence, and the assessee was held to have failed to displace the statutory presumption of residence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was resident in British India under section 4A(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the relevant previous years, and whether the Tribunal's finding that his visits were not occasional or casual was supported by evidence.

Analysis: For residence under section 4A(a)(iii), the department had to establish that the assessee had been in British India for the qualifying aggregate period within the preceding four years and had been in British India during the relevant previous year. Once those conditions were shown, the assessee had to prove that the visits in the previous year were occasional or casual. The assessee had earlier resided in British India for nearly seven years, admitted visits during the relevant years, and the Tribunal disbelieved his denial of business-connected presence. The Tribunal relied on the assessee's inconsistent statements, the admitted business dealings with Bombay concerns, the remittances made to Bombay, and the absence of supporting books or correspondence. On that material, the Tribunal was entitled to infer that the visits were in connection with business and not merely casual or social.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that the assessee was resident in British India for the relevant years was supported by evidence and was not vitiated in law; the answer on the second question was therefore in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the statutory conditions as to prior presence in British India and presence in the relevant previous year are established, the assessee bears the burden of proving that the visit was occasional or casual; a visit made in connection with business ordinarily does not satisfy that description.

---