Court affirms Commissioner's order on minor son's income, requires advance tax payment. Writ petition dismissed.

The court upheld the validity of the Commissioner's order under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the income of the minor son from a partnership firm is deemed to be the income of the individual assessee, necessitating advance tax payment on the total income, including the minor son's share income. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the assessee's obligation to pay advance tax on the total income, as per statutory provisions, and ordered the petitioner to bear costs.

---

---

Issues: Validity of Commissioner's order under section 264 of the Income Tax Act regarding interest charged on minor son's share income for advance tax payment.

In this case, the petitioner, an individual assessee, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the levy of interest on the share income of his minor son for not paying advance tax. The petitioner contended that he was not obligated to estimate his minor son's income for advance tax purposes. The court analyzed relevant provisions such as section 5, section 64, and section 212(3A) of the Act to determine the inclusion of the minor son's income in the total income of the assessee. The court found that the income of the minor son derived from the partnership firm was deemed to be the income of the individual assessee, forming part of the total income. The court emphasized the obligation of the assessee to pay advance tax on the total income, including the minor son's share income, as per section 212(3A).

The court also considered a Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioner's counsel, emphasizing that the prescribed form for filing returns did not require disclosure of the minor son's share income. However, the court distinguished this case from the present matter, clarifying that the obligation to pay advance tax on the total income, including the minor son's share income, was distinct from the requirement to disclose such income in the return form. The court reiterated that the liability to pay advance tax on the total income, as defined under section 2(45) of the Act, encompassed the minor son's share income under section 64.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Commissioner's order and emphasizing the assessee's obligation to pay advance tax on the total income, which includes the share income of the minor son. The court ordered the dismissal of the petition with costs, affirming the requirement for the assessee to comply with statutory provisions regarding advance tax payment on the total income, as outlined in section 212(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---