1984 (11) TMI 84 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of minor children's income in the assessee's income under Section 64(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Characterization of accumulated profits as deposits or loans.
3. Applicability of Section 64(1)(iii) to interest paid to minors by partnership firms.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of Minor Children's Income in the Assessee's Income under Section 64(1) of the IT Act, 1961
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added the incomes of the assessee's minor children from three partnership firms (M/s Chetan Industries, M/s Hiralal Industries, and M/s Himson Textile Engineering) to the assessee's income under Section 64(1) of the IT Act, 1961. This decision was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who observed that the credits in the minors' accounts largely originated from accumulated profits allotted to them by the firms. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim that these amounts should be treated as deposits made by the minors and thus excluded from Section 64(1)(iii).

Issue 2: Characterization of Accumulated Profits as Deposits or Loans
The assessee's counsel argued that the partnership deeds did not require the partners to bring in any capital and that interest paid to the minors should be regarded as interest paid to lenders. The counsel cited specific clauses from the partnership deeds of M/s Chetan Industries, M/s Hiralal Industries, and M/s Himson Textile Engineering to support this contention. However, the departmental representative argued that there was no agreement to treat the accumulated profits as loans, and thus the interest was rightly added to the assessee's income.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 64(1)(iii) to Interest Paid to Minors by Partnership Firms
The primary question was whether the income arising to the minors from the accumulation of profits in the firms fell under the category of income arising directly or indirectly from their admission to the benefits of partnership. The Supreme Court's decision in S. Srinivasan vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 273 (SC) was cited, where it was held that accumulated profits could not be equated with deposits or loans unless there was an agreement to treat them as such. This principle was reaffirmed in the case of CIT vs. Chandanmal Kasturchand (1978) 112 ITR 296 (Bom), where the Bombay High Court held that interest on accumulated profits could not be added to the assessee's income if there was a specific provision treating such amounts as deposits.

Separate Judgments:

Majority Judgment:
The majority opinion held that there was no clause in the partnership deeds requiring minors to contribute any capital, and thus, the income of the minors could not be added to the assessee's income on that account. The clauses in the partnership deeds did not suggest that accumulated profits should be treated as deposits. Therefore, the interest paid on these amounts was considered income arising indirectly from the minors' admission to the benefits of partnership, and thus includible under Section 64(1).

Dissenting Judgment:
One member disagreed with the majority view regarding the interest paid by M/s Hiralal Industries and M/s Himson Textile Engineering. The dissenting member argued that the specific clauses in the partnership deeds allowed minors to lend money to the firms and receive interest as lenders. Therefore, the interest on accumulated profits should be treated as interest on loans, not arising from the minors' admission to the benefits of partnership. The dissenting opinion emphasized that the partnership deeds should be reasonably construed, and the accumulated profits should be treated as deposits or loans advanced by the minors.

Resolution by Third Member:
The third member agreed with the dissenting opinion, holding that the interest paid to the minors by M/s Hiralal Industries and M/s Himson Textile Engineering should not be included under Section 64(1) in the assessee's total income. The third member noted that the minors had amounts standing to their credit before their admission to the partnership, which should be treated as deposits. The specific clauses in the partnership deeds indicated that minors were not required to bring in capital and could lend money to the firms, thus supporting the view that the interest paid was on deposits or loans.

Conclusion:
The final decision was that the interest paid to the minors by M/s Hiralal Industries and M/s Himson Textile Engineering was not includible in the assessee's income under Section 64(1)(iii). However, the interest paid by M/s Chetan Industries was includible. The appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was referred back to the original Bench for proper disposal.