On one of these occasions, he obtained an extension of time for payment of the tax after interviewing the authority companycerned The other facts relied upon by the income tax authori ties were that he did number produce the file of companyrespondence with the business in Colombo so as to help them in determin ing whether the management and companytrol of.the business was situated in Colombo and he had started two partnership businesses in India on 25th February, 1942, and remained in India for some time after the companymencement of those busi nesses.
What he did during this period is summarized in the judgment of one of the learned Judges of the High Court in these words During such stays, he personally attended to a litiga tion relating to the family lands both in the trial Court and in the Court of appeal.
Upon the facts so stated, the Income tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax held that the appellant was a resident within the meaning of section 4A b of the Income tax Act, and was therefore liable to be assessed in respect of his foreign income.
He was also attending the in companye tax proceedings relating to the assessment of the family income, appearing before the income tax authorities at Karaikudi and Madras.
APPELLATE JURIDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Setalvad G. NJoshi, with him for the respond ent.
25 of 1946 .
Rajah Aiyar K. Srinivasan, with him for the appel lant.
He carries on business in Colombo under the name and style of the General Trading Corporation, and he owns a house, some immoveable property and investments in British India.
He has also shares in two firms situated at Vijayapuram and Nagapatnam in British India.
In the year of account, 1941 42, which is the basis of the present assessment, the appel lant is said to have visited British India on seven occa sions and the total period of his stay in British India was 101 days.
