1986 (5) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the share of profits derived by an individual from a partnership firm can be included in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the inclusion of the share of profits derived by Shri Ramdhan Agrawal in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family from the firm of M/s. Ramdhan Agrawal in the hands of the assessee. The assessee, being a partner in the firm, argued that her income should not be clubbed with that of her husband's income as a partner in the firm, as he was a partner in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that the income derived by the husband should be included in the assessee's income under section 64(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also upheld this decision, stating that the husband, by entering into a contract with his wife for the firm, was binding himself to the terms of the contract, leading to the inclusion of his income in the assessee's assessment.

The court referred to relevant case laws, including Madho Prasad v. CIT and Sahu Govind Prasad v. CIT, to establish that a partner in a firm may have a dual capacity - representative and personal. While the income earned by the karta of a Hindu undivided family is taxed in the hands of the family, the karta remains an individual assessable in his personal capacity as well. Section 64 aims to add the income of the spouse or minor child in the computation of income of an individual, but if the individual is a partner in a representative capacity, the share income from the firm is outside the purview of section 64. The court highlighted that amendments in 1975 clarified this distinction. The court distinguished the cases cited by the assessee, emphasizing that they were related to the assessment of Hindu undivided families, not individuals under section 64.

Ultimately, the court answered the question in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue, and directed the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment reinforced the principle that the share income of the spouse from a partnership firm can be included in the total income of an individual under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, based on the specific circumstances and capacities in which the partners are involved in the firm.