Viswanatha Sastri, J.-In Referred Case No. 55 of 1946 two questions have been referred to this Court for our opinion:

“(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case and on the evidence and correspondence produced, the firm of Talipatigala Estate could be held to be controlled and managed in British India and is therefore resident and ordinarily resident in British India under section 4-A of the Indian Income-tax Act?

(2) Whether the proceedings under section 34 could be initiated against a firm which was not assessed previously when one of the partners of the firm had been individually assessed on his share in the firm?”

In Referred Case No. 56 of 1946 it is the first of the two questions above stated that has been referred to us for our opinion.

The facts common to both these references are these. Talipatigala, a rubber estate in Ceylon, was purchased by three persons some years ago and during the relevant period was owned by two of the original purchasers, the third having conveyed his interest to the others on 10th May, 1941. At one stage of the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was contended that the two individuals who now own the estate were merely co-owners or co-sharers and not partners and that no business was being carried on beyond the usual agricultural operations incidental to the ownership of a rubber estate. It has been found as a fact both by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the two owners of the estate are in fact partners who carry on the business of rubber production and that the estate is an asset of the firm. This finding is not now open to challenge before us as no question has been referred to us as to whether or not the two persons owning the estate are members of a firm. The case must now proceed on the basis that the owners of the estate constitute a firm whose business is the working of the rubber estate for profit and that the estate itself is an asset of the partnership.

The contention of the assessee is that though one of the partners is resident in Birtish India the control and management of the firm’s affairs is wholly situate without British India and the firm is therefore a non-resident. The estate which is situate in Ceylon is managed by an agent holding a power-of-attorney from the partners. The business of the firm requires the employment of a large number of labourers and the supervision of their work, the collection of the rubber juice and the processing of the raw product into a commodity which is fit for sale in the market. Under section 4-A(b) of the Income-tax Act, a firm is resident in British India unless the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly without British India. It is true that the residence of the individual partners of the firm in British India does not determine the residence of the firm for purposes of income-tax if the control and management of the firm’s business is wholly situate outside. It has been held in our court, as pointed out by the learned advocate for the assessee, that the mere receipt of copies of accounts from agents abroad, which is a common enough practice among Nattukottai Chettiars, does not amount to the exercise of the control by the principal who lives in British India, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Palaniappa Chettiar1. If the business is transacted abroad by the agents with plenary powers of management and control and the principal does not take any part in the conduct or supervision of the business beyond keeping himself occasionally informed of business conditions then the residence of the principal does not determine the place of control of the business. A mere fleeting or sporadic visit of a principal to the place where the business is conducted by an agent without any exercise of supervision or control during such visit would not connote the exercise or control over the business, Commissioner of Income-tax Madras v. Gangabishan Mohanlal2. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document