Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income of Rs. 9,290 arising to the minor, Narendra Kumar, son of Shri Bal Mukund, Karta of the assessee-HUF from the firm, Laxmi Kant and Co., Baran, cannot be included in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Counsel Appeared

Singhal, for the Revenue : Prem Asopa, for the Assessee

S. VERMA, C. J:

This reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, is to answer the following question of law, namely:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income of Rs. 9,290 arising to the minor, Narendra Kumar, son of Shri Bal Mukund, Karta of the assessee-HUF from the firm, Laxmi Kant and Co., Baran, cannot be included in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the IT Act, 1961 ?”

The relevant asst. yr. is 1979-80. The assessee is an HUF and not an individual. The question is whether the share income of the minor, Narendra Kumar, son of the Karta of the HUF, who was admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm is to be included in the income of the assessee-HUF while computing the total income of the assessee-HUF in accordance with s. 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. In D.B. IT Ref. No. 12 of 1981, CIT vs. Abhay Kumar (1988) 70 CTR (Raj)193: (1989) 179 ITR 363 (Raj), decided by us today, we have held that s. 64(1)(iii) of the Act applies where the minor child is of an individual who is the assessee as an individual ; and not where the assessee is an HUF. The view of the Tribunal being in consonance with the above decision, it has to be upheld.

4. Consequently, the reference is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal’s view is justified.

No costs.

[Citation :182 ITR 42]