V E PERIANNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee which arose out of the Tribunal's order dated March 24, 1989, for the assessment year 1985-86 are as follows :

(2.) THE assessee is a karta of the Hindu undivided family and a resident of India. For a period of one year the karta of the Hindu undivided family went abroad for the purpose of taking possession of land which had been held by a company on the winding up of which the land was allotted to the Hindu undivided family. After that he sold the land abroad and returned to India after one year. THEse proceeds were invested in other properties in India.

(3.) THOUGH the word "ordinarily" is not defined under the section or elsewhere in the Act, the true scope of that word does not pose any major problem of interpretation as that word has to be understood in the light of the other words used in the section. "Ordinarily resident" in a foreign country must be read along with the other words which require an intention to permanently reside in India after return. "Ordinarily" in this context refers to residence of long duration outside the country. The duration being long enough for the person to regard himself as being "ordinarily resident" of the country outside India and not to regard India as his permanent place of residence. A person who normally resides in India and for whom India is a permanent residence cannot claim the benefit of the section merely by travelling abroad and residing abroad for a period of one year and thereafter returning to his own country. The intention of such a person was always to regard India as his permanent home or place of permanent residence while he travels abroad, and when he returns to India.