1979 (1) TMI 69 - HC - Income Tax

Court narrows interpretation of 'such individual' in tax law, excludes HUF karta. Invalidates reassessment notices.

The court interpreted the term 'such individual' in Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, narrowly to exclude individuals acting in a ... A Partner, High Court, Income Tax Act, Individual Income, Minor Child Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the term 'such individual' in Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of Section 64(1)(ii) concerning the income of minor children and spouse in the context of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).3. Validity of reassessment notices under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the term 'such individual' in Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The core issue revolves around the exact connotation of the words 'such individual' in Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court examined whether the term refers specifically to an individual in their personal capacity or if it can include an individual acting as a representative, such as a karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).The court referred to the definition of 'individual' and 'assessee' under Sections 2(7) and 2(31) of the Act, respectively. It concluded that the term 'individual' in Section 64(1)(ii) must be interpreted narrowly to mean a person being assessed in their individual capacity, capable of having a spouse or minor child, and not in a representative capacity such as a karta of an HUF.2. Applicability of Section 64(1)(ii) concerning the income of minor children and spouse in the context of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF):The petitioner argued that his income from the firm of Dinubhai Ishwarlal & Co. was in his capacity as the karta of his HUF, and thus, Section 64(1)(ii) should not apply to include the income of his minor children or spouse in his individual income. The court supported this contention, emphasizing that the term 'individual' in Section 64(1)(ii) does not extend to a person acting in a representative capacity.The court cited the Supreme Court's rulings in CIT v. Sodra Devi [1957] and CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. [1965], which clarified that the term 'individual' refers to a person capable of having a spouse or minor child, thus excluding entities like HUFs, trusts, or associations of persons.3. Validity of reassessment notices under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The petitioner challenged the reassessment notices issued under Sections 147 and 148, arguing that the income of his minor children and spouse should not be included in his individual income. The court agreed, stating that the provisions of Section 64(1)(ii) could not be invoked to include the income of minor children or spouse in the petitioner's individual income when he is assessed as a karta of an HUF.The court quashed the reassessment notices and the related orders of reassessment and demand notices, directing the respondents not to proceed further with these notices.Conclusion:The court concluded that the term 'such individual' in Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refers to an individual assessed in their personal capacity and does not include individuals in a representative capacity such as a karta of an HUF. Consequently, the reassessment notices issued under Sections 147 and 148 were invalid, and the court quashed these notices and related orders.Judgment:The special civil application was allowed, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed. The court directed the respondents not to proceed further with the reassessment notices. The rule was made absolute with costs.