Clubbing of a minor's partnership income with a parent's income upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure.

Section 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as a valid anti-evasion measure that clubs a minor's partnership income with the parent's income when the parent is a partner, and it was held to fall within Parliament's legislative competence. The Court further held that sections 64(i) and 64(ii) created a reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia, since minors admitted to partnership benefits are ordinarily under parental control and the arrangement can be used to reduce tax liability. The restriction was not found to be an unreasonable invasion of property rights or the right to carry on business, and the Explanation fixing the parent whose income first absorbs the minor's share was not vague or arbitrary.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament; (ii) whether section 64(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether section 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament.

Analysis: The provision was treated as a measure to prevent evasion of tax by clubbing the minor's partnership income with the parent's income where the parent is a partner. The Court relied on the binding force of the Supreme Court's reasoning upholding the analogous provision in the 1922 Act, and held that the same principle applied to section 64(ii) of the 1961 Act. The alternative submission based on residuary power was not examined further because competence was already sustained on the principal ground.

Conclusion: The provision was within the legislative competence of Parliament.

Issue (ii): whether section 64(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that taxing statutes are subject to constitutional scrutiny, but section 64 created a reasonable classification aimed at preventing tax evasion. The clubbing rule was held to rest on an intelligible differentia, because minors admitted to partnership benefits are ordinarily under parental control and their income may be used to reduce tax liability. The Court further held that the restriction did not amount to an unreasonable invasion of property rights or the right to carry on business, and that the Explanation fixing the parent whose income would first absorb the minor's share was not vague or arbitrary. The earlier Supreme Court decision sustaining the analogous anti-evasion provision was treated as governing the issue.

Conclusion: The provision did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) and (g) and was constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the clubbing provision failed, and the assessments and demand notices were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision clubbing a minor's partnership income with a parent's income is constitutionally valid when it is a reasonable anti-evasion measure founded on an intelligible classification and does not impose an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights.

---