9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quantum of income to be included in assessment under section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: 1. The only issue in this departmental appeal was the quantum of income to be included in the assessment under section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, an individual and director in a company, had his wife employed by the same company. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included the wife's salary and fees under section 64(1), along with dividends from shares held by minor children. The assessee claimed deductions for provident fund contributions and insurance premiums paid by the wife, which were denied by the ITO. 2. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) sided with the assessee based on a decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal. The department appealed, arguing that deductions should not be allowed under section 64 and cited relevant case law to support their stance. 3. The department contended that under section 64, deductions claimed should not be allowed as they are to be made after determining the gross total income. They relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court and argued that the deductions claimed were based on the wife's expenditure, not the assessee's. They also highlighted a Kerala High Court decision not considered by the Jaipur Bench. 4. The assessee's counsel argued that the Jaipur Bench decision should be followed and that section 64 is not a deeming provision but allows the addition of specific income. They referenced a Bombay High Court decision to support their position regarding earmarked income for charity. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the case, emphasizing that under section 64, the income to be included is the wife's salary income, not gross receipts. Deductions claimed under section 80C were found impermissible at the stage of computing gross total income. The Tribunal rejected the contention that section 64 is not a deeming provision, citing relevant case law. 6. The Tribunal further clarified that section 64 creates a legal fiction, as established by the Bombay High Court and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court decisions. The income included under section 64 forms part of the gross total income, as per the legal authorities referenced. 7. The Tribunal distinguished the Kerala High Court decision cited by the department, stating that the legal fiction under section 64 extends to premium payments and provident fund contributions made by the wife, which are considered payments from the assessee's own income. 8. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee is entitled to deductions under section 80C and 80L for payments made by the wife, within the prescribed limits applicable to the assessee's gross total income. 9. The departmental appeal was partly allowed, with the income of the wife and minor children included for gross total income purposes, but deductions under sections 80C and 80L were to be considered as if made by the assessee himself.
|
