High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. AR. RM. M.R. Subramaniam Chettiar
R. Jayasimha Babu & Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
TC No. 1173 of 1987
15th December, 1998
C.V. Rajan, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The Tribunal has held that the income of a minor married daughter cannot be clubbed with that of the parent under s. 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. This view is wholly unsupportable from the language of the provision which only refers to “minor”. The status of the minor as to whether the minor is married or unmarried is immaterial for the purpose of the statutory provision. Marriage may have other incidents. So far as the taxability of the income is concerned, it is only the provisions of the IT Act that govern. The legislative intent as expressed in s. 64 of the IT Act is to regard the income of the minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership as income taxable in the hands of the parent. All the conditions which attract s. 64(1)(iii) of the said Act being satisfied, the income of the minor has been rightly clubbed with that of the parent.
2. A view similar to the one taken by us is also the view in the case of Kumaraswamy Reddiar vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 687 (Ker) : TC 42R.646, which is now brought to our notice by learned counsel for the Revenue. The question referred to us : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income of the assesseeâs minor married daughter should be included in the hands of the assessee under s. 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act ?” is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
[Citation : 250 ITR 358]