Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Amar Nath Bhatia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference Nos. 62 to 66 of 1979
Judge
Reported in(1984)41CTR(P& H)157; [1984]148ITR701(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 64(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentShri Amar Nath Bhatia
Advocates: Ashok Bhan and; Ajay Mittal, Advs.
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........of the case, the appellate tribunal has been in error in holding that the share income of the assessee's minor children from the firms in which he was a partner representing his huf and not in his individual capacity, could not be clubbed and aggregated with his individual income under section 64(1)(ii) of the act?'2. in cit v. anand sarup [1980] 121 itr 873, a similar question came up for consideration before a division bench of this court. the bench observed (p. 877) :'it is well known that what is being taxed under the i.t. act, is the income of a person, which includes an individual, a huf, a company, a firm and an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, a local authority and other artificial juristic persons not falling within the preceding.....
Judgment:

M.R. Shaema, J.

1. Amar Nath Bhatia as karta of the joint Hindu family formed a partnership firm with his minor sons, namely, Rajiv Kumar and Ajay Kumar. The business of the firm was being carried on under the name and style of Messrs United Steel Products, Panipat. The Income-tax Officer clubbed the income of Rajiv Kumar and Ajay Kumar with the income of Amar Nath Bhatia under Section 64(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, deleted from the income of the assessee the income derived by his two minor sons on the ground that since Amar Nath Bhatia had not become a member of the partnership firm in his individual capacity, the aforementioned provision of law was not attracted. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak, the following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has been in error in holding that the share income of the assessee's minor children from the firms in which he was a partner representing his HUF and not in his individual capacity, could not be clubbed and aggregated with his individual income under Section 64(1)(ii) of the Act?'

2. In CIT v. Anand Sarup [1980] 121 ITR 873, a similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court. The Bench observed (p. 877) :

'It is well known that what is being taxed under the I.T. Act, is the income of a person, which includes an individual, a HUF, a company, a firm and an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, a local authority and other artificial juristic persons not falling within the preceding categories. Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), provides that in computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly--(i) to the spouse of such individual from the membership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a business in which such individual is a partner; (ii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm. The word 'assessee', as defined in Section 2(7) of the Act, means a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under this Act and includes every person who is deemed to be an assessee under any provisions of this Act. From these provisions, it is apparent that the question is of the income of an individual and the concept of an individual has a different connotation from a HUF and other categories which are included in the definition of 'person' under Section 2(31) of the Act.

The word 'assessee' is wide enough not only to cover an individual but also a HUF, a company or a local authority and every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually. The section talks of only income of any individual capable of having a wife or minor children or both. It, therefore, necessarily excludes from its purview a group of persons forming a unit or a corporation created by a statute.'

3. The learned counsel for the Revenue has brought to our notice a contra view taken by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sahu Govind Prasad v. CIT : [1983]144ITR851(All) . We are, however, bound to follow the view taken by a Division Bench of this court.

4. For the reasons aforementioned, the question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //