Court rules minor sons' share income assessable in father's hands under Section 64(1)(iii)

The Court held that the share income of minor sons from the firm was assessable in the fathers' hands under Section 64(1)(iii) as amended from April 1, 1976. The amendment introducing a new liability could not be applied retrospectively to the previous accounting year. The date of income accrual is crucial for determining tax liability, with the new liability under Section 64(1)(iii) not applicable retrospectively to the prior accounting year. The matter was remanded for disposal in line with the clarified legal principles.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Retrospective effect of the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975.
3. Interpretation of the timing of accrual of income versus the timing of assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The central issue was whether the share income of minor sons of the assessees, including the interest on capital credited to the minor sons from the partnership firm, should be computed in the hands of their father under Section 64(1)(iii) for the Assessment Year 1976-77. This provision was introduced by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975, effective from April 1, 1976. The accounting years of the assessees ended on August 10, 1975, and December 31, 1975. The Tribunal had included the minor sons' income in the fathers' income under this provision, which was contested by the assessees.

2. Retrospective Effect of the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975:
The legal question was whether the amendment could be applied retrospectively to income that accrued before its effective date. The Division Bench had previously ruled in Badri Prasad & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax that the law in force at the commencement of the assessment year (April 1, 1976) would govern the assessment for that year. However, the assessees argued that the liability to pay income tax hinges on the accrual of income, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Wealth Tax Commissioner (Central), Calcutta.

3. Interpretation of Timing of Accrual of Income vs. Timing of Assessment:
The Court considered whether the time of income accrual or the time of assessment was relevant for applying the amended provision. The assessees' counsel argued that the law applicable on the date of assessment should determine the tax liability, irrespective of when the income accrued. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, which stated that the Income Tax Act as amended on April 1 of any financial year must apply to the assessment of that year.

Court’s Findings:

On Applicability of Section 64(1)(iii):
The Court held that the law in force on April 1, 1976, would govern the assessment for the financial year 1976-77. The Tribunal was correct in holding that the share income of the minor sons from the firm was assessable in the hands of their fathers under Section 64(1)(iii) as amended from April 1, 1976.

On Retrospective Effect:
The Court observed that the amendment introduced a new liability and could not be applied retrospectively. The amendment would apply to the assessment for the financial year 1976-77, corresponding to the assessment year 1977-78, and not to the previous accounting year 1975-76.

On Timing of Accrual vs. Assessment:
The Court clarified that the date of accrual of income is relevant for determining tax liability. If a provision comes into force in a particular financial year, it applies to the assessment for that year but not for the previous year. The Court harmonized the judgments in Kesoram Industries and Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd., concluding that the new liability under Section 64(1)(iii) could not be retrospectively applied to the previous accounting year.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the judgment in Badri Prasad did not lay down the correct law. The reference was answered, and the matter was remanded to the Division Bench for disposal in terms of the law clarified by the Full Bench.

---