9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r three minor sons are also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee and her sons were separately assessed in respect of their shares from the firm. In the return filed by her, she had not included in her total income their shares of profit of her minor sons from the firm. She had, however, pointed out in Part III(c) of the return that the particulars were " as per firm's return ". Part III(c) of the form of return requires that the assessee should show the relationship with other partners which she had failed to mention. After the assessment was over, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment and called upon the assessee to file a fresh return. Again the return was filed in the same ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to the following effect : " In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly- . . . . . . (ii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner . ." Section 64 in terms places the responsibility of including the income of a minor in that of the individual assessee on the Income-tax Officer. There is nothing to indicate in this section that the assessee is under any obligation to show that income in the return filed by him. Section 139 of the Act provides : " 139. (1) Every person, if his total income or the total income of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filling the return but, as we have already pointed out, no place is shown in the form where such an income could be indicated. It is also true that in Part III of the said form, the assessee is required to give the names of the partners in which he or she is a partner and to give their relationship and it is also required to be stated if any of the partners are minor children of the assessee. In this particular case, the assessee had referred to the partnership assessment and had thus substantially complied with the requirements of Part III also. We, therefore, find it difficult to hold that the assessee had without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which she was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopened, much less can any penalty be imposed under section 271 of the Act. The provisions of the present Act referred to above also came for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Radheshyam Ladia v. Income-tax Officer, wherein the same conclusion was reached on the interpretation of sections 64 and 139 and the Form prescribed. It is also worthy of note that in this particular case penalty was imposed under clause(c) of section 271(1) of the Act. That clause speaks of concealment by the assessee of " his income ". The income of the minors, which is included under section 64 of the Act in the income of the assessee, is not certainly the income of the assessee. The penalty has not been inflicted for failure to give any other part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
