TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the non-resident assessee in his individual assessment under section 64(1)(iii) - The question posed for our opinion is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee - - - - - Dated:- 31-1-2003 - Judge(s) : B. SUDERSHAN REDDY., N. V. RAMANA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by B. SUDERSHAN REDDY J.-The Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad, required the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "A", to refer the following common question, said to be a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated April 9, 1991, in I.T.A. Nos. 194 to 202/Hyd of 1988, for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and came to the conclusion that if any of the partners of the firm is a non-resident, the assessment is to be made on the firm and the tax recovered from the firm itself. The Tribunal, relying upon section 2(23) of the Act, came to the conclusion that the minor who has been admitted to the benefits of partnership is also to be treated as a partner. The Tribunal by reading the said two provisions together came to the conclusion that in the case of a non-resident minor partner, the assessment has to be made on the firm and tax also has to be recovered from the firm itself. In the result, the Tribunal took the view that the share income of the minors could not be included in the hands of the assessee, non-resident, in his individual assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Act, 1992, with effect from April 1, 1993: "64. Income of individual to include income of spouse, minor child, etc.- (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;..." A plain reading of this provision would make it clear that it does not make any difference between a resident and non-resident. It is a substantive provision mandating as to how an individual's income is to be computed and directs that the income of the individual to include income of the spouse, minor child, etc. It is very well settled and needs no reiteration in our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it were assessed on him personally, and the tax so assessed shall be paid by the firm..." A plain reading of the above provision makes it dear that it provides for the procedure for assessment and by itself does not confer any substantive right. As rightly contended by learned senior standing counsel it merely provides the procedure and mechanism for the realisation and recovery of tax from the partners of a registered firm, who are non-residents. The tax is required to be paid by the registered firm. It provides that the tax on the share of a non-resident partner of a registered firm and his income out of his share in the firm shall be assessed on the firm itself at the rate or rates, which would be applicable if it were assessed on him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
