Strict construction of income attribution provision barred clubbing minors' partnership income with the mother's taxable income.

Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed strictly in relation to the income of minor sons arising from benefits of a partnership in which their mother was a partner. The provision was aimed at preventing tax avoidance through family arrangements, but the wording did not clearly extend to a mother assessee. In the absence of express language bringing her within the clause, the court preferred a construction in favour of the taxpayer and rejected reliance on the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius as controlling the result. The minor sons' income from the partnership benefits was therefore not includible in the mother's total income.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a true construction of section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the income of the minor sons of a woman assessee, arising from the benefits of a partnership in which the mother was a partner, was liable to be included in her total income.

Analysis: The provision was enacted to counter tax avoidance by nominal family partnerships and related transfers of assets. The wording of section 16(3) is not wholly free from ambiguity, but a taxing provision must be construed strictly and no tax burden can be imposed except by clear words. The words "such individual" in clause (a)(ii) were examined in the light of the statutory scheme, the mischief sought to be remedied, and the legislative history. The absence of express language extending the provision to a mother assessee was treated as significant, and the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius was held not to control the construction. In a case of doubt, the construction favouring the subject was preferred.

Conclusion: The income of the minor sons arising from the partnership benefits could not be included in the mother assessee's total income under section 16(3)(a)(ii).

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing provision creating an artificial inclusion of another person's income must be applied only where the statute clearly and expressly brings the assessee within its terms; ambiguity must be resolved against the revenue and in favour of the subject.

---