9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions of s. 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding inclusion of income of the assessee's husband in the assessment of the assessee.
Summary: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was presented with a question of law regarding the inclusion of the income of the assessee's husband in the assessment of the assessee u/s 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee, a sole proprietrix of a hardware and paint shop, employed her husband to manage the business and paid him a salary. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included the husband's salary in the assessee's total income. The matter was appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which reversed the order of the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) and upheld the inclusion of the husband's salary in the assessee's income. The Tribunal concluded that the proviso to s. 64(1)(ii) does not apply unless the technical or professional qualifications relate to a qualification awarded by a recognized body, and there was no evidence that the husband's income was solely attributable to technical or professional knowledge and experience. The Tribunal's decision was challenged before the High Court. The counsel for the assessee argued that technical or professional qualification does not necessarily require a certificate from a recognized body, and possession of technical knowledge and experience should suffice. The Revenue's counsel contended that qualifications must originate from a recognized body for the proviso to apply. The High Court held that technical or professional qualifications do not have to be from a recognized body, and possession of knowledge and experience is sufficient. However, in this case, there was no evidence that the husband's income was solely attributable to technical or professional knowledge and experience. As this finding was not challenged before lower authorities, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to include the husband's salary in the assessee's total income u/s 64(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the High Court answered the question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
