Clubbing of minor's partnership income fails where the assessee acts as karta, not as an individual

Income of a minor son from a partnership firm could not be clubbed in the assessment of a Hindu Undivided Family under section 64(1)(ii) because the clause applies to an "individual". Where the assessee was a partner only as karta of the HUF, that representative capacity was not treated as an individual for this clubbing provision, and the statutory fiction could not be extended to assess the minor's share income in the hands of the HUF. The addition was therefore deleted and the deletion was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the share income of the minor son from the partnership firm could be clubbed in the assessment of the Hindu Undivided Family under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee was a partner in the firm in his capacity as karta of the Hindu Undivided Family, while the minor son was separately admitted to the benefits of the same partnership. The provision invoked speaks of an "individual". On the reasoning accepted in the earlier authorities relied upon, a representative assessee acting as karta is not to be treated as an individual for the purpose of this clause, and the statutory fiction for clubbing minor child's income cannot be extended to an assessment in the hands of the Hindu Undivided Family.

Conclusion: The share income of the minor son was not liable to be clubbed in the hands of the Hindu Undivided Family, and the deletion of the addition was upheld.

---