9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Reopening of assessments under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Clubbing of share income of minor sons in the hands of the assessee; Interpretation of Explanation 1 to section 64(1) of the Act; Non-disclosure of income of minor children; Double addition of income in the hands of the assessee and his wife; Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involved an appeal concerning the reopening of assessments under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the non-inclusion of share income of minor sons in the return filed by the assessee. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added back the share income of the minor sons, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The main argument presented was that the share income of the minor sons had already been included in the assessment of the assessee's wife, who was also a partner in the same firm. The assessee relied on Explanation 1 to section 64(1) of the Act, contending that once the income of a minor child is included in a parent's total income, it should not be included in the other parent's income unless the ITO is satisfied otherwise. However, the Tribunal did not agree with this contention, emphasizing that clubbing of income is determined by the parent with the higher income, as per the Explanation. The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded by the ITO for reopening the assessments, which highlighted the omission or failure of the assessee to disclose the income of the minor children, justifying the application of section 147 of the Act. It was noted that the return form requires disclosure of income arising to spouse/minor children, and the failure to do so could lead to non-disclosure of a material fact, warranting proceedings under section 147(a). Regarding the concern of double addition of income, the Tribunal expressed that the situation was a result of the assessee's actions and suggested that the Commissioner utilize his jurisdiction under section 264 of the Act to rectify the issue. The Tribunal recommended excluding the income of the minor sons from the wife's assessment, even though it had been added earlier, as a fair measure under the circumstances. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal with these observations and recommendations to the Commissioner.
|
