1970 (9) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Mother and her minor son both are partner in same firm - includibility of interest on amount deposited by the minor in the total income of his mother us 64 (ii)Income Tax Act, 1961

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of interest income of a minor child in the assessment of the mother under section 64(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the inclusion of the minor son's interest income in the assessment of the mother for the assessment year 1962-63. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially proposed the inclusion of the minor son's share in the assessment of the mother, but later excluded the interest amounting to Rs. 5,561 received by the minor. The Income-tax Officer appealed against this decision, arguing that the interest earned by the minor should be included in the mother's assessable income. However, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the reference to the High Court for a legal opinion.

The main issue revolved around the interpretation of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the income of an individual, including income arising indirectly to a minor child from the benefits of partnership in a firm where the individual is a partner. The department relied on clause (ii) of section 64, while the Tribunal's question referred to clause (i) of the same section.

The High Court analyzed previous judgments to determine the applicability of section 64 in the current case. In one case, it was held that interest earned by minor partners on deposits in a firm should not be included in the total income of the assessee. However, in another case, it was decided that interest accruing to a minor due to their admission to the benefits of partnership should be included in the total income of the father.

The Tribunal's judgment highlighted that there was no provision in the partnership deed for the minor's capital contribution to the firm, indicating that the money brought in by the minor was not considered capital. As there was no established connection between the partnership of the minor and the interest received, the department's argument under clause (ii) of section 64 failed.

Ultimately, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee, and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax to pay the assessee costs for the reference. The decision was based on the lack of evidence establishing a connection between the minor's partnership and the interest income, leading to the rejection of the department's claim under section 64(ii) of the Act.