9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act"). This was resisted in first appeal on the ground that section 64(1)(iii) authorises the inclusion of income arising from admission to benefits of partnership "to a minor child" and that "a minor child" would mean only one child and not both children. Since the assessee had two minor children, the assessee argued that none could be included. It was alternatively argued that, at best, income of one child only could be included. The first appellate authority referred to section 13 of the General Clauses Act which provided that "words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa" unless the context requires otherwise. In this view, he confirmed the assessment. In the second appeal, the arguments are repeated. 3. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. We have carefully considered the arguments presented before us. Section 64(1)(iii) reads as under: "(1) In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly--- (iii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm." History of the section could leave us in no doubt as to the intention of the Parliament. As pointed out by the learned representative himself, the original intention was to cover income from assets transferred to minor children even by mother on the recommendation of Direct Taxes Enquiry Committee under item 38, in para 7.81(5) and (6) of its report which reads as under: "38-7.81(5) 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... text in the income-tax law which would justify an exception to the above rule. Section 160 does not define a "child" and it cannot, therefore, override the general principle stipulated under section 13 of the General Clauses Act. In Coast Brick Tile Works Ltd. v. Premchand Raichand [1967] 1 AC 192, the Privy Council held that the words "the security" in sub-para (b) of the Kenya Money-Lenders' Ordinance] need not mean "the sole security" and that "the" should be read as "a" or it can altogether be omitted---see, Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, 12th, edn., p. 232. Hence, there is no special significance in the word "the" even in the earlier statute. It also stands to reason that "a" and "the" may be inter-changeable. It is true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
