1972 (6) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

High Court: Assessee's Non-Resident Status Upheld for 1962-63 Based on Control Delegation

The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that they should be assessed as a non-resident for the assessment year 1962-63 based ... Assessee is a firm of four partners carrying on business in Ceylon in pawn-broking and money-lending. All the four partners are residing in India – firm appointed a power of attorney to act as agent to conduct business in Ceylon. There was no evidence of control or management - Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee should be assessed as a 'non-resident' - since there was no evidence that the assessee in any way controlled the business, it was liable to be assessed as a non-resident – question is answered in affirmative and against the revenue Issues:1. Whether the assessee should be assessed as a 'non-resident' for the assessment year 1962-63Rs.2. Whether the control and management of the assessee's business were situated wholly outside India during the assessment yearRs.Analysis:1. The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of whether the assessee should be assessed as a 'non-resident' for the assessment year 1962-63. The firm in question consisted of four partners carrying out business in Ceylon, with all partners residing in India. The firm claimed to be assessed as a non-resident for that year based on the argument that the management and control of the business were vested in a power of attorney agent residing in Ceylon. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim, interpreting the power of attorney as giving directions to the agent but not explicitly mentioning the power to lend money on behalf of the firm. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the agent had complete control and management of the business, leading to the firm being assessed as a non-resident for that year.2. The Court further analyzed whether the control and management of the assessee's business were situated wholly outside India during the assessment year. The relevant provision, Section 6(2) of the Income-tax Act, stated that a firm is considered resident in India unless the control and management of its affairs are situated wholly outside India. The deed appointing the power of attorney agent granted extensive powers to manage and control the business in Ceylon, with no reservation of control by the principal partners. The Court found that the agent had de facto control of the business, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Previous assessments as a resident were not determinative, as the status of the assessee for each assessment year is independent of past treatment. The Court concluded that the assessee had proven that the control and management of its business were wholly outside India, leading to the affirmation of the reference in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that they should be assessed as a non-resident for the assessment year 1962-63 based on the delegation of complete control and management to a power of attorney agent in Ceylon. The Court emphasized the importance of actual control and management in determining the residency status of an assessee and highlighted that past assessments do not dictate the status for a specific assessment year.