9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad Bench 'B', Hyderabad, in I.T.A No. 239/Hyderabad/81 dated January 27, 1982, and quash the same. The assessee had returned an income of Rs. 41,085 for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessment was completed on September 9, 1977, on total income of Rs. 44,450. The income as returned by the assessee comprised of three items: Rs. 1. Property income 50 2. Share income earned by his three minor sons from M/s. Rajendrakumar Bafna & Co., Guntur, under sec. 64 of the I.T. Act 40,930 3. Other sources-interest 105 ------ 41,085 ------ The ITO while accepting the figures furnished by the assessee, under s. 64 of the I.T. Act added a sum of Rs. 3,299 to the assessee's income as income received by the assessee's wife from M/s. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idual assessee's income is above the taxable limit, the assessee's minor child's income from the admission of such minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm cannot be computed. Inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal has held that it cannot go into the merits of the case, a reference could not be sought and the assessee has, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this court under art. 226 of the Constitution. The relevant provision of s. 64 of the I.T. Act which directs the inclusion of all such income as arises directly or indirectly to a minor child of an individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm reads as follows: " 64. (1) In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. We do not find any warrant to draw such a conclusion either on the wording of s. 64(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act or on any principle of law. On the contrary this provision was inserted by the T.L. (Amend.) Act, 1975, to bring all such income to tax with a View to plug the evasion of tax by the assessees by transferring assets to the minors or by deriving income admitting the minors to the benefits of partnership in a firm. We are, therefore, not persuaded to accept the contention of the assessee-petitioner. The order of the ITO is justified not only on the ground that the major portion of the income returned by the assessee himself cannot be excluded from the computation of the assessee-petitioner's income, but also on the ground that such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
