Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Prem Bhai Parekh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2272 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1970SC1518; [1970]77ITR27(SC); (1970)1SCC784; [1971]1SCR308
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 16(3), 66(1) and 66A(2);
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta
RespondentPrem Bhai Parekh and ors.
Appellant Advocate S. Mitra,; A.S. Nambiar,; R.N. Sachthey and;
Respondent Advocate M.C. Chagla and ; P.K. Chatarjee, Advs.
Cases ReferredGujarat v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel
Prior historyAppeal from the Judgment and Order dated January 6, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 211 of 1961
Excerpt:
.....non-joinder of necessary parties. the trial court dismissed the suit. on appeal, the high court confirmed the decree of -the trial court, but held that the main property in schedule 1 did not belong to the appellant's mother, but to her father and the sale-deed in respect of the property was taken by her father in the name of her mother benami. on appeal by special leave, the appellant mainly contended that the property in question would fall under s. 10(2)(b) :of the act, and not under s. 10(2)(d) as respondents had contended and therefore, she would be exclusively entitled to it and the plea of ,non-joinder of her brothers would fail. held: (per, p. b. gajendragadkar, k. subba rao, k. n. wanchoo and n. rajagopala ayyangar jj.). it would be straining the language of s. 10(2)(b) of the..........by the income-tax officer but he held that the minors were entitled to only 1-9 pies share in the firm. the assessee took up the matter in appeal to the income-tax appellate tribunal. the tribunal upheld the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner.6. on the facts found by the tribunal, the high court came to the conclusion that answer to question no. 2 should be in the negative and in favour of the assessee.7. the tribunal found that the capital invested by the minors in the firm came from the gift made in their favour by their father, the assessee. that finding was not open to question before the high court nor did the high court depart from that finding. but on an interpretation of section 16(3)(a)(iv) the high court opined that the answer to the question must be in favour of.....
Judgment:

K.S. Hegde, J.

1. This is an appeal by certificate, granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the decision of that Court in a reference under Section 66(1) of that Act.

2. The two questions of law referred to the High Court by the tribunal are : (1) Whether Section 16(3) of the Act was ultra vires the Central Legislature and (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income arising to the three minor sons of the assessee by virtue of their admission to the benefits of the partnership of Messrs. Ajitmal Kanhaiyalal was rightly included in the total income of the assessee under Section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Act.

3. The assessee at whose instance those questions were referred did not press for an answer in respect of question No. 1. There-tore that question was not dealt with by the High Court. Hence we need not go into that question. The High Court answered the second question in favour of the assessee.

4. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the point in dispute as set out in the statement of the case submitted by the tribunal are as follows :

5. The assessee Shri Ajitmal Parekh was a partner of the firm M/s. Ajitmal Kanhaiyalal having 7 annas share therein. He continued to be a partner of that firm till July 1, 1954 which was the last date of the accounting year of the firm, relevant for the assessment year 1955-56. On July 1, 1954, the assessee retired from the firm. Thereafter he gifted to each of his four sons Rs. 75.000/-. Out of his four sons, three were minors at that time. There was a reconstitution of the firm with effect from July 2, 1954 as evidenced by the partnership deed dated July 5, 1954. The major son of the assessee became a partner of the' reconstituted firm and his minor sons were admitted to the benefits of that partnership in the reconstituted firm. The major son had 2 annas share. His three minor brothers were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, each one of them having 2 annas share. In the assessment year 1956-57, the Income-tax Officer held that the income arising to the minors by virtue of their admission to the benefits of the partnership came within the purview of Section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. He included that income in the total income of the assessee for that year. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner substantially upheld the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer but he held that the minors were entitled to only 1-9 pies share in the firm. The assessee took up the matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

6. On the facts found by the tribunal, the High Court came to the conclusion that answer to question No. 2 should be in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

7. The tribunal found that the capital invested by the minors in the firm came from the gift made in their favour by their father, the assessee. That finding was not open to question before the High Court nor did the High Court depart from that finding. But on an interpretation of Section 16(3)(a)(iv) the High Court opined that the answer to the question must be in favour of the assessee. Section 16(3)(a)(iv) reads:

In computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall be included (a) so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly. . .

(iv) from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child, not being a married daughter by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration.

8. Before any income of a minor child can be brought within the scope of Section 16(3)(iv), it must be established that the said income arose directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly by its father. There is no dispute that the assessee had transferred to each of his minor sons, a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. It may also be that the amount contributed by those minors us their share in the firm came from those amounts. But the question still remains whether it can be said that the income with which we are concerned in this case arises directly or indirectly from the assets transferred by the assessee to those minOrs. The connection between the gifts mentioned earlier and the income in | question is a remote one. The income of the minors arose as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. It is true that they were admitted to the benefits of the partnership because of he contribution made by them. But there is no nexus between the transfer of the assets and the income in question. It cannot be said that that income arose directly or indirectly from the transfer of the assets referred to earlier. Section 16(3) of the Act created an artificial income. That section must receive strict construction as observed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel : [1965]55ITR637(SC) . In our judgment before an income can be held to come within the ambit of Section 16(3), it must be proved to have arisen--directly or indirectly--from a transfer of assets made by the assessee in favour of his wife or minor children. The connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate. The income in question must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it.


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