TMI Blog1952 (8) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Damayanti Sahni in assessing her income, profits and gains? Ishwardas Sahni was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Ishwardas Sahni Brothers till his death on the 7th of November, 1946. The firm's accounting year ended on the 31st of March, 1947. Ishwardas Sahni left him surviving his widow Shrimati Damayanti and two minor sons from that widow. Shrimati Damayanti became a partner in the firm, which also admitted her two minor sons to the benefits of partnership. In the assessment year 1946-47 the Income-tax Officer found that the income of the two minor sons who were admitted to the benefits of that partnership should be assessed in the hands of Shrimati Damayanti under Section 16(3)(a)( ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. On appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income-tax [1950] 18 ITR 944, Mr. Amar Nath Kirpal urges that the minors' shares of profit in Messrs. Ishwardas Sahni Brothers can be included under Section 16(3)(a)(ii ) of the Act in the mother's assessable income. In Shrimati Chanda Devi's case (supra) the material facts giving rise to the reference were identical with the facts of the present case. In that case Madan Lal and his four sons-Kishan Lal being major and the other three sons Ramesh Chandra, Mahesh Chandra and Hari Mohan being minors-were partners of firm Baij Nath Madan Lal. Madan Lal died on the 3rd of April, 1942, and a fresh partnership deed was executed on the 13th of April, 1942, under which Shrimati Chanda Devi, widow of Madan Lal, and her four sons be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act must be a male. The words on which reliance is placed are these: by such individual for the benefit of his wife or minor child or both . Now, if the Legislature thought that the individual referred to in Section 16(3)(a)(ii ) of the Act must in all cases be a male, the Legislature could have drafted the concluding part of Section 16(3)(b) of the Act to read by such individual for the benefit of his wife or his minor child or both . As pointed out in the Allahabad case if the Legislature had intended that the word individual in sub-clause (ii) should mean only the father and not the mother there was no reason why they should not have used similar language as in sub-clause (i) and said from the admission of the minor to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
