1978 (5) TMI 58 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of the share of loss of the assessee's wife from the firm in the assessee's total income under Section 64(1)(i) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Inclusion of the net income from interest derived by the assessee's wife from the firm in the assessee's total income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of the Share of Loss of the Assessee's Wife from the Firm:

The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the share of loss of the assessee's wife from the firm should be included in the assessee's total income under Section 64(1)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in Dayal Bhai Madhavji Vadera vs. CIT, which held that the term 'income' in Section 64(1)(i) does not include negative income (loss). Consequently, they excluded the share of loss of the assessee's wife from the assessee's total income.

However, the assessee argued that the term 'income' should include both positive and negative income, supported by the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Harpd. & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., which stated that "loss is negative profit" and both positive and negative profits must enter into the computation of taxable income. The assessee also cited the Mysore High Court decisions in J.M. Gotala vs. CIT and Dr. T.P. Kapadia vs. CIT, which took the view that the share of loss of the spouse should be included in the total income of the individual.

The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat decision focused on the concept of 'income' as only positive profits, while the Mysore High Court and the Supreme Court decisions supported the inclusion of both positive and negative profits. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 64(1)(i) does not define 'income' restrictively and should be interpreted to include both profits and losses. The Tribunal also highlighted the administrative stance of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Circular No. 20 of 1944, which supported the inclusion of the spouse's loss in the individual's total income.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the share of loss of the assessee's wife from the firm should be included in the assessee's total income under Section 64(1)(i).

2. Inclusion of the Net Income from Interest Derived by the Assessee's Wife:

The second issue concerns the inclusion of the net income from interest derived by the assessee's wife from the firm. The authorities below included the net interest income of Rs. 412 in the assessee's total income, arguing that it was positive income derived by the wife from the firm.

The assessee contended that the interest received by the wife should not be considered in isolation from the share of loss from the firm. According to Section 67(1)(c), any salary, interest, commission, or other remuneration paid to a partner should be adjusted against the share of loss, and the result should be treated as the partner's share in the income of the firm. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the authorities below should have determined the wife's share of loss from the firm after accounting for the interest received by her as a partner and adjusting the interest paid on borrowed money.

The Tribunal concluded that the authorities below were not justified in including the net interest income separately from the share of loss. However, since the Tribunal held that the share of loss of the assessee's wife should be included in the assessee's total income, this issue became less significant.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal directed the Income Tax Officer to modify the assessment by including the share of loss of the assessee's wife in the total income of the assessee under Section 64(1)(i). Consequently, the appeal succeeded, and the Tribunal's decision favored the assessee's contention that both positive and negative income should be included in the computation of taxable income under the relevant provisions of the IT Act, 1961.