9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "individual" in Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding inclusion of minor sons' profits in the mother's income for assessment. Analysis: The case involved a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, regarding the interpretation of the term "individual" in Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The question was whether the word "individual" includes a female and whether the shares of the two minor sons of a widow in the profits of a re-constituted firm should be included in the income of the widow for assessment purposes. The widow had become a partner in the firm after her husband's death, and her minor sons were also admitted to the benefits of partnership. The Income-tax Officer had assessed the minor sons' income in the hands of the widow under Section 16(3)(a)(ii), but the Appellate Tribunal found that the word "individual" did not refer to a female assessee. The interpretation of Section 16(3)(a)(ii) was crucial in this case. The section deals with the inclusion of income arising from the admission of a minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm of which an individual is a partner. The argument was raised that the term "individual" must mean a person capable of having both a wife and a minor child. However, the court held that the word "individual" in Section 16(3)(a) is used disjunctively with "wife" and "minor child," indicating that the individual assessed for income tax could be a female with a minor child, even if she does not have a husband. The court also examined the argument that the wording of Section 16(3)(b) implies that the individual referred to in Section 16(3)(a)(ii) must be a male. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that if the legislature intended to restrict the term "individual" to only males, they could have used different language in the provision. The court relied on precedent, specifically the decision in Shrimati Chanda Devi's case, which held that the minors' shares of profits in a firm can be included in the mother's assessable income under Section 16(3)(a)(ii). In conclusion, the court followed the precedent set in Shrimati Chanda Devi's case and answered the reference question in the affirmative, confirming that the word "individual" in Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act includes females as well. The Chief Justice also agreed with this decision.
|
