9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Hostile discrimination in clubbing minor's income with parents' income. 2. Nexus between the object and clubbing minor's income with parents' income. 3. Provisions against Directive Principles of State Policy. Detailed Analysis: Hostile Discrimination in Clubbing Minor's Income with Parents' Income The petitioners argued that section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, creates hostile discrimination by clubbing the income of a minor with that of their parent, leading to a higher tax rate. They contended that this provision is discriminatory as it treats minors whose income is clubbed differently from those whose income is not clubbed. The court referenced the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in K. M. Vijayan v. Union of India [1995] 215 ITR 371, which upheld the validity of section 64(1A), stating it was not violative of articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The court also cited the Patna High Court in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. Union of India [1994] 209 ITR 746, which held that section 64(1A) aims to check tax evasion and is within the legislative competence, not violating article 14. Nexus Between the Object and Clubbing Minor's Income with Parents' Income The petitioners claimed there is no nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the clubbing of the minor's income with the parent's income. The court reviewed the memorandum accompanying the Finance Bill and the recommendations of the Chokshi Committee, which highlighted tax avoidance through minors' income. The court noted that the provisions were intended to prevent tax evasion by treating minors' income as part of the parents' income, thus ensuring fair tax liability. The court found that the classification under section 64(1A) was neither arbitrary nor evasive but based on a substantial distinction, bearing a reasonable relation to the legislative objective. Provisions Against Directive Principles of State Policy The petitioners argued that section 64(1A) contravenes the Directive Principles of State Policy by imposing a tax burden on minors, thus affecting their welfare. The court referred to the judgment in Unni Krishnan (V. P.) v. State of A. P., AIR 1993 SC 2178, which emphasized the state's role in protecting minors' interests. However, the court concluded that section 64(1A) is a machinery provision for tax computation, aligning with the legislative intent to curb tax avoidance. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Balaji v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 393, which upheld similar provisions aimed at preventing tax evasion through family members. Conclusion The court dismissed the petitions, holding that section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not violate articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The provision was deemed a legitimate legislative measure to prevent tax avoidance, with a reasonable classification and nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The court affirmed the legislative competence in enacting such provisions, emphasizing the broader discretion allowed in fiscal matters to address tax evasion.
|
