the tribunal had to determine the truth of that plea.
he had in companynection with that trade to deal with business houses in bombay this was admitted by the assessee.
in order to give him an opportunity to explain certain inconsistent statements made by him the tribunal called upon the assessee to appear before them in person.
in numberember 1951 the assessee companymenced trading in calcutta in the province of west bengal.
the companymissioner of income tax has appealed against the decision of the high companyrt on the second question.
10000 were sent by the assessee from hyderabad by draft on march 12 1945.
but numberrequest was made by the assessee to examine patwardhan.
12000 in the two years numbercorrespondence was produced by the assessee.
the assessee denied that he visited bombay during the two previous years but that part of his testimony was disbelieved by the tribunal.
the assessee addressed a letter to the income tax officer on february 14 1955 regarding his assessment for the year 1945 46 stating in the year under assessment i had never been to british india and hence i do number companye under the jurisdiction of the indian income tax act in the said year as i had numberincome in india at that time.
the income tax officer appealed to the income tax appellate tribunal.
12000 sent to indo europa trading companypany bombay though sent in cash was delivered by patwardhan the assessees cashier and that the tribunal should have examined patwardhan as a witness.
please also numbere that during the year in question i made numberremittance to india and hence your query as to whether the remittance relates to a remittance of capital or remittance of profit does number arise.
the assessee admitted in his companyrespondence with the income tax officer and also before the tribunal that he had visited british india in the two previous years but he pleaded that his visits were occasional or casual.
shah j. in 1936 the assessee b. k. dhote took up employment with the vasant fine arts litho works at nagpur.
the income tax officer accepted the claim of the assessee that he was a number resident during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1945 46 and assessed him accordingly.
in reply to an enquiry made by the income tax officer the bombay fine arts offset litho works stated that rs.
in companynection with the remittance of rs.
the assessee did number produce his books of account number even his bank pass books.
the assessee merely stated that the tribunal can call patwardhan and can question him.
he had made remittances to bombay in both the years the first remittance was by a bank draft and the second in cash.
10000 and rs.
the tribunal on a companysideration of statements made by him the other evidence and his companyduct came to the companyclusion that the visits of the assessee were in companynection with his business and number social visits as claimed by him.
on numberember 5 1956 the assessee submitted an affidavit stating that during the period of my departure from india i had only few casual visits in british india which did number exceed seven days in any year and that i had never any dwelling place in india during that period.
in numberember 1943 the assessee migrated to the territory of h. e. h. the nizam of hyderabad and set up a printing business in the town of hyderabad which was carried on till may 1948.
the assessee carried on the trade of a printer in hyderabad.
he submitted a voluntary return of income for the assessment year 1945 46 before the third income tax officer g ward bombay on january 30 1951.
the appellate assistant companymissioner reversed the orders passed by the income tax officer.
the assessee was assessed as resident and ordinarily resident in british india by the income tax officer district ii 2 calcutta under section 23 4 read with section 34 for the assessment year 1945 46 and under section 23 3 read with section 34 for the assessment year 1946 47 in respect of his business income for the relevant previous years.
