TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief, are that Smt. Rani Duleiya is a partner of the firm, Messrs. Agarwal Co., which was registered under the Income-tax Act. Her 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 Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different. This argument was not accepted by the Tribunal. The same argument was pressed before us on behalf of the department. Section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons which is to be included in the assessee's total income under sections 60 to 64 of the Act should also be taken into account in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ussed above, the situation is not in any way different. If, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the assessment could not be 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
