1970 (8) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee. The assessee went up in appeal and urged that the word " individual " as used in section 64 of the Act refers only to the male of the species as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sodra Devi , and therefore the Income-tax Officer was wrong in adding the income of the minor sons, derived in the partnership business, in the income of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the plea. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal it was conceded that the decision of the Supreme Court in Sodra Devi's case was under section 16 of the Income-tax Act of 1922, whereas the present case was governed by section 64 of the 1961 Act. The wordings of section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... child of such individual from the admission of the or to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner ; (iii) subject to the provisions of clause (i) of section 27, to the spouse of such individual from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the spouse by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart ; (iv) subject to the provisions of clause (i) of section 27, to a minor child, not being a married daughter of such individual, from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration; and (v) to any person or association of persons from assets transferred otherwise than fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... " such individual " as used in sections 64(i) and 64(ii) should be given the same meaning. The " individual " contemplated in section 64(i) is an " individual " who has a spouse and therefore in sections 64(ii) also the individual should be such who has a spouse. According to him it is only when a minor child of an " individual " who has a spouse is admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm that the income of the minor child can be added to the income of that individual. Since a widow has no spouse she is not such an individual referred to in section 64(ii) and therefore the income of her minor son, admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm, cannot be added to her income. We are unable to accept this argument raised by the lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X