1983 (2) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Inclusion of minor daughters' share income in the assessee's total income.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and reliance on judicial precedents.

Summary:

1. Applicability of section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue is whether the share income of the assessee's minor daughters from the partnership firms should be included in the assessee's total income u/s 64(1)(ii). The assessee, the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), admitted his six minor daughters to the benefits of partnership in firms where he was a partner. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included the minors' share income in the assessee's individual assessment, citing s. 64(1)(ii), which mandates the inclusion of a minor child's income from a partnership in the parent's total income if both are members of the same firm.

2. Inclusion of minor daughters' share income in the assessee's total income:
The assessee argued that s. 64(1)(ii) could not apply unless the father's share income from the firm was also included in his total income. The Tribunal accepted this argument and ordered the deletion of the minors' share income from the assessee's individual assessment. The Department contended that the Tribunal misconstrued s. 64(1)(ii), which does not require the father's share income to be part of his total income for the minors' share income to be included.

3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and reliance on judicial precedents:
The court emphasized that s. 64(1)(ii) only requires that both the father and the minor child be members of the same firm, without any further conditions. The court declined to consider subsequent amendments to the section or the Explanation related to cases where both parents are partners in the same firm. The court also dismissed the assessee's reliance on decisions from other High Courts, noting that those cases did not focus on the specific wording of s. 64(1)(ii) and were influenced by doctrines of Hindu law and partnership law.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that s. 64(1)(ii) requires the inclusion of the minor child's share income in the parent's total income if both are members of the same firm, regardless of whether the father's share income is included in his total income. The court rejected the assessee's arguments and the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the Department. The assessee was ordered to pay the Department's costs, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.