9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of minors' share income in the assessee's hands under Section 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 2. Inclusion of interest accrued on minors' capital accounts in the assessee's hands. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion of Minors' Share Income: The primary issue in these appeals is whether the share income of the assessee's three minor sons, derived from their admission to the benefits of two partnership firms (M/s Sri Krishna Steels and M/s Sama Agencies), should be assessed in the hands of the mother under Section 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act. The minors were admitted to the partnerships solely for the benefits and were not liable for any losses. The assessee's counsel conceded that the inclusion of the minors' share income in the assessee's hands for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 was correct and did not contest this point. 2. Inclusion of Interest Accrued on Minors' Capital Accounts: The contentious issue was whether the interest amounts accrued on the minors' capital accounts should also be included in the assessee's hands. The assessee's counsel argued that the interest should not be included because the minors were deemed creditors of the firm, and the interest was earned independently of their partnership benefits. The counsel contended that the minors could have earned similar interest by depositing their share income elsewhere, and thus, the interest should not be clubbed with the assessee's income under Section 64(1)(ii). The departmental representative opposed this view, citing several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in S. Srinivasan vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 273 (SC) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Akula Venkatasubbaiah vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 458 (AP). These cases established that interest earned on capital accounts of minors admitted to the benefits of partnership should be included in the assessee's income. The representative emphasized that the firms maintained only a single capital account for each minor, which included share profits, initial capital, and interest, and there was no separate credit account for the minors. The Supreme Court's decision in S. Srinivasan's case highlighted that accumulated profits remaining in the firm's hands could not be equated with deposits or loans. The profits were earned due to the minors' admission to the benefits of the partnership, and the interest accrued was a result of the funds being used by the firm without any specific arrangement to convert them into loans or deposits. The Madras High Court in CIT, Madras II vs. Misrimul Sowcar (1979) 13 CTR (Mad) 308: (1979) 119 ITR 123 (Mad) reinforced this principle, stating that a mere provision in the partnership deed to treat accumulated profits as loans did not alter their character. The court held that the interest on accumulated profits should be included in the assessee's income under Section 64(1)(ii). Conclusion: The Tribunal accepted the departmental representative's arguments and judicial precedents, concluding that the interest amounts accrued on the minors' capital accounts should be included in the assessee's income. The assessee's counsel failed to persuade the Tribunal to differ from the Lower Appellate Authority's decision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the inclusion of both the minors' share income and the interest accrued on their capital accounts in the assessee's hands under Section 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act.
|
