1961 (8) TMI 8 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the appropriate Legislature had the competence to enact section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)? Whether the husband is statutorily made to pay certain amount as tax on the income of his wife, to that extent, he is deprived of his property by the State action and, therefore, his fundamental right under section 19(1)(f) is infringed? Held that - The reasonableness or otherwise of a classification has to be decided with reference to all the circumstances of the case including the social and economic structure prevalent in the area where the taxing statute is in operation. An attempt to prevent by legeislation an evasion of just tax liability and the necessary classification to give effect to that object cannot, in our view, be termed unreasonable. Mode of taxation may be a little hard on a husband or a father in the case of genuine partnership with wife, or minor children, but that is offset, to a large extent, by the beneficient results that flow therefrom to the public, namely, the prevention of evasion of income-tax, and also by the fact that, by and large, the additional payment of tax made on the income of the wife or the minor children will ultimately be borne by them in the final accounting between them. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the provisions of section 16(3) of the Act impose an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the petitioner under article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Legislature to enact section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Constitutional validity of section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Constitutional validity of section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Legislature to Enact Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii)

The petitioner challenged the competence of the Legislature to enact section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arguing that entry 54 in the Federal Legislative List of the Government of India Act, 1935, did not confer power to tax A on the income of B. The court examined entry 54, which is identical to item 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and noted that it authorizes the imposition of a tax on "income" without restricting the legislative power to tax only the income of the person assessed. The court referenced the decision in Sardar Baldev Singh's case, which held that the entry can sustain a law made to prevent the evasion of tax. The court concluded that section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) was enacted to prevent tax evasion and was within the competence of the Federal Legislature.

2. Constitutional Validity under Article 14

The petitioner argued that section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) violated the doctrine of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 14 permits reasonable classification if it is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. The court held that the classification under section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) was reasonable as it aimed to prevent tax evasion by individuals who could use their wives and minor children as a cloak to perpetrate fraud on taxation. The court rejected the argument that the classification lacked rational relation to the object, emphasizing that the Legislature selected a group of persons who are likely to be used for tax evasion.

3. Constitutional Validity under Article 19(1)(f) and (g)

The petitioner contended that section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The court examined whether the restrictions were reasonable in the interest of the general public. The court applied the test of reasonableness laid down in State of Madras v. V. G. Row and concluded that the restrictions were reasonable. The court noted that the provisions aimed to prevent tax evasion by individuals doing business in partnership with their wives or minor children. The court acknowledged that the provisions might be hard on genuine partnerships but emphasized that the benefits to the public, such as the prevention of tax evasion, justified the restrictions. The court held that section 16(3) did not impose an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g).

Conclusion

The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the constitutional validity of section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, under both Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The court found that the provisions were within the competence of the Legislature and constituted reasonable restrictions aimed at preventing tax evasion.

← Previous Next →