9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Interpretation of the terms "any individual" and "such individual" in Section 64(1). Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue was whether the income of the wife of the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from a partnership firm could be included in the husband's individual assessment under Section 64(1)(i). The court examined the legislative intent behind Section 64(1), which was aimed at preventing tax evasion through nominal partnerships between husbands and wives. The court noted that the section was designed to include the income of the spouse in the individual's assessment if both are partners in the same firm. However, it was argued that the term "individual" should not cover a karta who is a partner in a representative capacity. The court found that the legislative history and the purpose of the section did not intend to disturb the prudent management of family affairs by the karta of an HUF. Therefore, the court concluded that the income of the wife from the firm should not be included in the husband's individual assessment. 2. Applicability of Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The second issue was whether the income of minor children admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm, where the karta of an HUF is a partner, should be included in the father's individual assessment under Section 64(1)(ii). The court reiterated that the legislative intent behind Section 64(1) was to prevent tax evasion by including the income of minor children in the father's individual assessment if both are in the same firm. However, the court emphasized that the karta, who is a partner in a representative capacity, should not be included within the scope of "individual" as intended by the legislature. The court observed that the share income accrued to the karta in the partnership firm should be taxed in the hands of the HUF and not in his individual status. Consequently, the income of the minor children should not be included in the father's individual assessment. 3. Interpretation of the Terms "Any Individual" and "Such Individual" in Section 64(1): The court examined the exact connotation of the terms "any individual" and "such individual" in Section 64(1). It was argued that these terms should be interpreted to include an individual who is a partner in a firm, irrespective of whether he is a partner in a personal or representative capacity. The court referred to the legislative history and the Supreme Court's interpretation in CIT v. Sodra Devi [1957] 32 ITR 615, which held that the terms were intended to cover only individuals in their personal capacity and not in a representative capacity. The court emphasized that the section aimed to prevent tax evasion by individuals through nominal partnerships with their spouses or minor children. Therefore, the court concluded that the terms "any individual" and "such individual" should be interpreted narrowly to exclude individuals acting in a representative capacity, such as the karta of an HUF. Conclusion: - I.T.R.C. No. 89/76: The Tribunal was incorrect in holding that Section 64(1)(i) and (ii) were applicable, and the income of the wife and minor children should not be included in the assessee's individual assessment. The answer is in the negative and in favor of the assessee. - I.T.R.C. No. 90/76: The Tribunal was incorrect in holding that Section 64(1)(ii) was applicable, and the income of the minor children should not be included in the assessee's individual assessment. The answer is in the negative and in favor of the assessee. - I.T.R.C. No. 85/78: The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 64(1)(ii) was not applicable, and the income of the minor children should be excluded from the assessee's individual assessment. The answer is in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
|
