2025 (7) TMI 677 - HC - Income Tax

Delhi HC confirms orphan minors qualify as 'individuals' under Section 2(31) of Income Tax Act

Dyutit Mittal (Minor) Through Grand Father Rajinder Kumar Mittal Versus Union Of India & Anr.

Dyutit Mittal (Minor) Through Grand Father Rajinder Kumar Mittal Versus Union Of India & Anr. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court are:(a) Whether, under the Income Tax Act, 1961, an individual for the purposes of taxation includes a minor who is an orphan;(b) Whether a minor, specifically an orphan minor, qualifies as an 'individual' under the definition of 'person' in Section 2(31) of the Act and is therefore liable to pay income tax;(c) Whether the Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii), particularly the definition of 'relative,' excludes minors from the category of individuals for income tax liability;(d) Whether the income earned by the petitioner (minor orphan) is taxable under the Act;(e) Whether the status of being an orphan affects the classification of a minor as an individual under the Act.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) and (b): Whether a minor, specifically an orphan minor, qualifies as an 'individual' under the Income Tax Act, 1961The Court examined the definition of 'person' under Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which explicitly includes 'an individual' as one of the categories of persons liable under the Act. The petitioner contended that a minor, particularly an orphan minor, does not qualify as an individual for the purposes of taxation.The petitioner's argument rested on the premise that an 'individual' must be capable of entering into contracts and that a minor, who lacks such capacity, cannot be an individual under the Act. The petitioner also referenced Explanation (e) to Section 56(2)(vii), arguing that the plain reading of the definition of 'relative' therein excludes minors from being individuals.The Court rejected this contention. It held that the term 'individual' as used in Section 2(31) is not restricted by capacity to contract or other such qualifications but is a broad term encompassing all natural persons, including minors. The Court noted that the Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii) defines 'relative' for specific purposes and does not limit or exclude minors from the definition of 'individual' under the Act. The Court observed that nothing in the Explanation suggests that a minor is excluded from the definition of an individual.The Court further analyzed the petitioner's argument regarding the interpretation of Clause (G) of Explanation (e) to Section 56(2)(vii), which includes the spouse of certain relatives. The petitioner suggested that this clause controls the other subclauses and thereby excludes minors. The Court found this argument to be a misreading and unfounded.Issue (c): Interpretation of Explanation (e) to Section 56(2)(vii) regarding 'relative'The Court considered the Explanation (e) to Section 56(2)(vii), which defines 'relative' in the context of income tax provisions. The petitioner argued that since the Explanation includes spouses of certain relatives but does not explicitly mention minors, it implies exclusion of minors from the definition of individual.The Court held that the Explanation's purpose is limited to defining 'relative' for specific provisions and does not affect the general definition of 'person' or 'individual' under Section 2(31). The Court found no textual or contextual basis to exclude minors from being individuals liable under the Act.Issue (d): Taxability of income earned by the petitioner (minor orphan)The Court declined to delve into the question of whether the income earned by the petitioner is taxable, stating that such matters are subject to assessment by the relevant tax authorities and are not appropriate for determination in the present petition.Issue (e): Whether the status of being an orphan affects the classification of a minor as an individualThe petitioner contended that a minor with living parents qualifies as an individual, but an orphan minor does not. The Court rejected this contention as frivolous and unfounded, emphasizing that the status of being an orphan does not alter the legal classification of a minor as an individual under the Income Tax Act.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held unequivocally that the term 'individual' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, includes minors, regardless of whether they are orphans. The Court stated:'We find nothing in this Explanation which would lead us to accept that the individual would not be a minor.'Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding the Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii), the Court observed:'The contention advanced clearly unfounded and must be rejected.'Regarding the orphan status, the Court concluded:'This argument is frivolous, unfounded and must be rejected, at the outset, for the said reason.'The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a minor, including an orphan minor, is an individual under the Income Tax Act and is therefore liable to pay income tax as per the provisions of the Act. The Court refrained from ruling on the taxability of the petitioner's income, leaving that determination to the appropriate authorities.