Tests required of casual visit.

Satyanarayana Rao, J.-The Appellate Tribunal referred to us the following question under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.

“whether in the circumstances of the case the applicant can be held to be a ‘resident’ in British India in the ‘previous year’ under section 4-A(a)(iii) on the ground that he was in British India in the ‘prevous year’ otherwise than on an occasional or casual visit.”

The relevant clause of the section referred to in the question is as follows (Section 4-A (a)(iii)):

“For the purpose of this Act any individual is resident in British India in any year if he having within four years preceding that year been in British India for a period of or for periods amounting in all to ‘65 days or more, is in British India for any time in that year otherwise than on occasional or casual visit.”

The facts found or admitted are: the assessee who was once a resident of Authoor a village in the Tirunelveli district, left the place several years ago and went to Ceylon where he married a Ceylonese lady. He thereafter carried on business in Ceylon. At Authoor the father of the assessee is still living. It is a place which is about 35 miles away from Tuticorin. The assessee came to British India on 17th February, 1936, and stayed till 4th July, 1936, i.e., for a period of 137 days. Then from 18th October, 1937, till 10th December, 1938, he stayed in British India for a period of 13 months. In the accounting year 1941-42 which is the subject-matter of the present dispute he came and lived in British India from 1st January, 1942, till 1st July, 1942, and during this period it would be seen that the 90 days are within the accounting year. He came to India as there was the fear of invasion by Japan and stayed for some time at Tuticorin and later at Authoor in a rented house. He subsequently returned to Ceylon after the fear was removed. It is also found by the Income-tax Officer that in this year of accounting remittances to the tune of Rs. 56,800 were received from Ceylon and that the amount was sent to his father.

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 four 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.

There is no decision which has considered the expression ‘occasional’ or ‘casual’ visit; and though the expressions are capable of easy application to given set of facts, it is difficult to lay down in precise terms the meaning of those expressions. The word ‘Casual’ according to Oxford Dictionary is capable of several meanings and it includes the idea of a thing being accidental or coming at uncertain times; not to be calculated upon; unsettled; occurring without design or liable to happen. The word ‘visit’ conveys also the meaning of short or temporary stay at a place. By occasional visit must be meant that a person visits a place on a particular occasion such as, the marriage of a relation or a friend; or giving evidence in a suit and allied matters; while casual visit implies that the object or the intention of the person makin