9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the minors had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership as individuals, making their share income liable to be included in the total income of their mother under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a partnership where a partner, Sheo Behari Avasthi, held a 6 annas share, and his wife, Smt. Kalawati Devi, held a four annas share. After Sheo Behari Avasthi's death, a new partnership deed was executed, granting Smt. Kalawati Devi a 10 annas share, with no share initially granted to their minor sons. Subsequently, the sons were admitted to the partnership with a 19 p. share each. The Income-tax Officer added the minors' share income to the mother's income under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the argument that the minors were admitted as representatives of their Hindu undivided family, exempting their income from inclusion in the mother's income. However, the Tribunal held that the sons were admitted as individuals, making their income liable to be added to the mother's income. The Tribunal's decision was based on several key points: firstly, the entire share capital was initially entered in the mother's name after the father's death; secondly, the mother was assessed on the income for four years before the capital was divided between the sons in 1956; thirdly, the sons were allotted specific shares individually; fourthly, the income from their shares was assessed in the sons' names for several years, indicating individual ownership. The Tribunal concluded that a partition occurred in 1956, making the sons separate owners of their respective shares, and their income was individual, not belonging to a joint Hindu family. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to include the sons' income in the mother's total income. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the finding was based on relevant material and there was no error of law. The court emphasized that the sons' share income was individual and not part of a joint Hindu family income, justifying its inclusion in the mother's income under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the department and awarded costs to the Commissioner of Income-tax.
|
