9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest paid on amounts credited to the minor son's account in the partnership firm was includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the amounts credited to the minor son's account should be treated as deposits or capital contributions. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Includibility of Interest under Section 64(1)(iii) The first issue pertains to whether the interest paid by the firm on the amounts credited to the minor son's account should be considered as income arising directly or indirectly from the minor's admission to the benefits of partnership and thus includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to investigate the nature of the interest received by the minor. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the amounts in question were accumulations of interest, share of profit, and dividends, and not capital contributions. Therefore, the interest was not includible under section 64(1)(iii). The Tribunal upheld this finding and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Upon further appeal to the High Court, the Revenue argued that the amounts should be treated as capital based on clauses 7 and 10 of the partnership deed, which would mean the interest accrued was for the benefit of the firm and thus includible under section 64(1)(iii). The High Court, however, concluded that the amounts were deposits and not capital contributions, and thus the interest was not includible under section 64(1)(iii). Issue 2: Treatment of Amounts as Deposits or Capital Contributions The second issue revolves around whether the amounts credited to the minor son's account should be treated as deposits or capital contributions. The High Court examined the partnership deed and the manner in which the amounts were credited and accumulated. Clause 7 of the partnership deed stated that all assets should form the capital of the firm contributed by the parties, including the minor, to the extent of the balances standing to their respective credits. Clause 10 provided for interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the moneys standing to the credit of the partners. The court noted that the initial amount of Rs. 1,200 was deposited by a cheque, and the amount grew over the years with interest, dividends, and share of profits. The court found that the manner in which the amounts were credited indicated that they were deposits and not capital contributions. The court also observed that the father, who was the natural guardian of the minor, was not a party to the partnership agreement, and there was no evidence of any agreement to convert the deposits into capital. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in S. Srinivasan v. CIT, which dealt with a similar issue. In that case, the Supreme Court held that accumulated profits remaining in the hands of the firm could not be equated with deposits or loans unless there was a specific arrangement to that effect. Applying this principle, the High Court concluded that the amounts credited to the minor's account were deposits and not capital contributions. Conclusion: The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The interest paid on the amounts credited to the minor son's account was not includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the amounts were to be treated as deposits and not capital contributions.
|
