9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the share income of the minor sons of the assessees in the firm of M/s. Arvind Cold Storage was rightly included in the individual assessment of the respective assessees. Judgment Details: The High Court of Allahabad was approached by the assessees regarding the inclusion of the share income of their minor sons in the individual assessment. The assessees, partners of the firm Arvind Cold Storage, had their minor sons admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm. The share of the minors in the firm's profits was treated as the income of their fathers in the individual status and assessed accordingly for the years 1967-68 to 1969-70. Despite appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the decision was upheld, leading to the reference of the question of law to the High Court. The contention arose regarding the interpretation of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically focusing on the clause related to the income of a minor child from the admission to the benefits of partnership in a firm where the individual is a partner. The amendment to section 64 in 1975 was also discussed, which altered the wording of the clause in question. The assessees argued that the share income of the minors should not be treated as the income of the fathers since the fathers were partners as kartas of their joint families, not in their individual capacity. On the other hand, the revenue contended that the amendment aimed to widen the scope of taxation, making the minor's income taxable for the father regardless of the father's status as an individual or karta of the joint family. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions explaining the position of a karta of a Hindu joint family when entering a partnership with outsiders. It was clarified that the karta's partnership with others does not automatically make the other family members partners in the firm. The karta's rights and obligations are individual, not joint family-related, in the context of the firm. Based on the legal interpretations and the specific circumstances of the case where the assessees were partners in the firm where their minor sons were admitted to the benefits of partnership, the court ruled in favor of the revenue. The share income of the minor sons was rightly included in the individual assessments of the respective assessees. The court ordered the assessees to pay the costs of the revenue and the advocate's fee.
|
