9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the inclusion of share incomes derived by the assessee's wife and minor children in the hands of the assessee-individual. Summary: The judgment of the court pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, involving a Hindu undivided family carrying on business, partial partition, and the inclusion of share incomes in individual assessment. The family had a partial partition, forming a partnership firm with the karta and his wife as partners, including their minor children. The Income-tax Officer accepted the partial partition and granted registration to the firm. The issue arose when the income of the wife and minor children was included in the individual assessment of the karta. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially deleted this inclusion, leading to an appeal by the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, prompting the reference to the High Court. The main question referred to the High Court was whether the share incomes derived by the assessee's wife and minor children could be considered in the hands of the assessee-individual under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court analyzed the provisions of section 64, which mandate the inclusion of certain incomes in the total income of an individual, such as income from a spouse's membership in a firm or a minor child's benefits of partnership. The court emphasized that section 64 applies only to the computation of total income of an individual and does not extend to a karta of a joint family. The court further clarified that the expression "individual" in section 64 does not encompass a karta of a Hindu joint family. It highlighted that the section aims to prevent tax avoidance by individuals transferring assets to spouses or minor children. The court distinguished between an individual's capacity in a partnership and their role as a karta or trustee, stating that section 64 cannot be invoked in cases where a person acts in a representative capacity. The court disagreed with the view that section 64 applies to a karta or trustee, as it would lead to absurd situations and go against the legislative intent. Ultimately, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the revenue and awarding costs.
|
