9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Clubbing of share income of a minor in the hands of a Hindu undivided family for income tax assessment purposes. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the clubbing of the share income of a minor, Nitesh Kumar, in the hands of an assessee-Hindu undivided family. The question was whether the share income of the minor could be clubbed with the income of the Hindu undivided family represented by its karta, Abhay Kumar, for computing the total income. The contention was based on section 64(1)(iii) of the Act, which deals with including income of a minor child from the benefits of partnership in a firm in the parent's income. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal accepted it, leading to the reference. The court analyzed section 64(1)(iii) and emphasized that the word "individual" in the provision refers to the parent of the minor child. It clarified that the provision applies only when the parent is the assessee in an individual capacity, not as a representative of a Hindu undivided family. The court highlighted that the word "individual" excludes a Hindu undivided family, as per the definition of "person" in the Act. It further explained that the provision aims to club the minor's income only when the parent is assessed as an individual, not as a karta of a Hindu undivided family. The judgment referenced Supreme Court decisions and decisions from various High Courts, all supporting the interpretation that section 64(1)(iii) applies when the parent is assessed as an individual, not in a representative capacity. The court noted that the Karnataka High Court decision extensively discussed the issue and highlighted that the income of the minor child can only be clubbed when the parent is assessed as an individual. The court aligned with the conclusions of these decisions and upheld the Tribunal's view that the clubbing of the minor's share income in the Hindu undivided family's hands was not sustainable. In conclusion, the court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, affirming that section 64(1)(iii) applies only when the parent is assessed as an individual, not in a representative capacity. The judgment clarified the distinction between the capacities of a karta of a Hindu undivided family and an individual for the purpose of income tax assessment, ensuring that the clubbing of the minor's income is done correctly in accordance with the law.
|
