9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Inclusion of income under section 64(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the inclusion of sums of Rs. 56,236 and Rs. 53,834 under section 64(1)(v) of the Act in the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The dispute arose from the inclusion of income from a property held by a family trust for the benefit of minor sons of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer initially included the sums in question in the assessee's income, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that only a pro rata share of income should be included under section 64(1)(v). However, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing for the inclusion of the entire income from the property. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue, setting aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and restoring the Income-tax Officer's decision. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of section 64(1)(v) of the Act. The assessee argued that the inclusion should be limited to income directly arising from assets transferred by the assessee, not indirectly. The Revenue, on the other hand, emphasized the broader language of the provision, which included income arising directly or indirectly from transferred assets. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's position, leading to the current reference before the High Court. Upon analyzing the provisions of section 64(1)(v) both before and after the 1976 amendment, the High Court concluded that the inclusion of income from assets transferred indirectly was within the scope of the provision. The Court clarified that the amendment aimed to widen the definition of transfers to include income arising indirectly from transferred assets. In this case, the transfer was made directly for the benefit of the minor children, satisfying the requirements of the clause. The Court emphasized that the inclusion of indirectly arising income was not a new concept under the Act. The High Court rejected the assessee's argument that only income directly from transferred assets should be included. The Court highlighted that the word "indirectly" in the provision was crucial to cover situations where income arose from converted assets rather than the original ones. By including indirectly arising income, the provision aimed to establish a proximate connection between the transfer and the income. The Court cited precedent to support the interpretation that indirectly arising income fell within the purview of section 64(1)(v). Ultimately, the High Court held that the sums in question had been rightly included under section 64(1)(v) in the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The Court answered the referred question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs under the circumstances of the case.
|
