1986 (7) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act regarding clubbing of minor children's share income in the hands of the assessee.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the inclusion of minor children's share income in the hands of the assessee under section 64. The assessee, an individual with two minor sons admitted to a partnership firm, did not include the minor sons' share income in his return. The Income-tax Officer assessed the minors' income in the hands of the assessee as required under section 64(1)(iii). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that since there was no separate income of the assessee, section 64(1)(iii) did not apply. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the need for computation of the assessee's total income before including the minor's income. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) and emphasized that the total income of the individual could be "plus income," "nil income," or "minus income," and the minor's income should be included in such computation.

The High Court referred to precedents like Dr. T. P. Kapadia v. CIT and CIT v. Harprasad & Co. P. Ltd. to support the interpretation that total income includes both profits and losses. It highlighted that the definition of "total income" under section 2(45) of the Income-tax Act encompasses positive, negative, or nil profits. The court rejected the Tribunal's view, stating that excluding minor children's income when the individual has nil income would defeat the legislative intent behind section 64(1). The court emphasized that the provision aims to prevent tax avoidance by transferring income to minor children or spouses. Upholding the legislative intent, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the interpretation should not allow individuals to distribute income to minors to avoid tax liability.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference question in the negative and in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the need to interpret section 64(1)(iii) to prevent tax avoidance and uphold the legislative intent behind the provision.