Married minor daughter's income cannot be clubbed with father's income under a strictly construed anti-avoidance provision.

Section 64(1)(iii) was read as an anti-avoidance provision aimed at taxing income diverted to minors, and therefore required strict construction. Although a married daughter may remain biologically a minor child, marriage changes guardianship and places her under her husband's control rather than the father's. On that contextual reading, the necessary nexus between the father and the minor child was absent, so the income of a married minor daughter could not be included in the father's total income.

---

---

Issues: Whether the income arising to a married daughter, though a minor, could be included in the assessee-father's total income under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The provision was construed in the light of its legislative purpose of countering tax avoidance through diversion of income to minors. The earlier comparable provision in section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the later omission of the words linking the minor's partnership income to the assessee being a partner were considered in assessing the scope of the present provision. The expression "minor child" was held to require a contextual reading; although a married daughter may biologically remain a child and a minor, the change in guardianship on marriage meant that the father no longer had control over her person or property. Since the provision creates an artificial income and calls for strict construction, the necessary nexus between the father and the minor child was found to be absent where the daughter was married and under her husband's guardianship.

Conclusion: The income of a married minor daughter could not be added to the father's total income under section 64(1)(iii), and the assessee succeeded.

---