1985 (11) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of section 64(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Connection between a daughter-in-law becoming a partner in a firm and the investment made by her father-in-law.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Rajasthan involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the interpretation of certain provisions. The case revolved around the deceased assessee, represented by his son, who made a gift to his daughter-in-law and subsequently formed a partnership firm with her. The Income-tax Officer added the interest on the gifted amount and the daughter-in-law's share of profit to the assessee's income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the inclusion of interest but directed the Income-tax Officer to include the share of profit based on the proportion of the gift amount to the total investment made by the daughter-in-law in the firm.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the provisions of section 64(1)(vi) did not apply due to the absence of inclusion in Explanation 3 to section 64(1). The Tribunal also found no intimate connection between the daughter-in-law becoming a partner in the firm and the investment made by her father-in-law. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the daughter-in-law's share income from the gift was not includible in the assessee's income despite section 64(1)(vi).

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the provisions of section 64(1)(vi) did not apply based on the Tribunal's findings. The Court noted that Explanation 3 to section 64(1) only applied to certain clauses, excluding clause (vi). Additionally, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's factual finding that there was no intimate connection between the daughter-in-law becoming a partner and the gift investment, which was not vitiated by any irregularities.

Ultimately, the Court held that no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, as the issues were primarily factual and did not warrant a reference under section 256 of the Act. Therefore, the application under section 256(2) was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.