AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (12) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner to tax. 2. The petitioner is a partner in the firm of Messrs. E. Venkatanarasa Reddy and Co., Gudur, along with his two major sons and a minor son Ananta Padmanabha Reddi, who has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In the assessment year, 1952-53, the petitioner's income was computed at Rs. 82,392/- and therein was included the income pertaining to the share of his minor son, according to the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This assessment was made on 11-3-1953, and admittedly the petitioner preferred no appeal against the said assessment order. On 30-12-1954, the assessment was revised under Section 35 after obtaining the concurrence of the assessee by adopting the correct share of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time from the date of the making of the order and that ordinarily, a period of six months might be considered reasonable, though, in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court might, in its discretion, excuse the delay. It was there pointed out that "Otherwise, while periods of limitation are fixed for every form of remedy available to a party, there will not be any time limit for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The exercise of power under Article 226 by a Court irrespective of any time lag will introduce complications and unsettle rights finally decided by authorities empowered to do so". The petitioner has not offered any reasonable explanation for excusing the inordinate delay of 4-1/2 years f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l v. Sen Sodra Devi [1957]32ITR615(SC) , the contentions raised by him require to be examined afresh and that in any view, the validity of the provision with reference to its alleged conflict with Section 40 of the Income Tax Act must be considered. In the Supreme Court decision their Lordships had to determine whether the word 'individual' occurring in Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Act "includes also a female and the income of their minor sons derived from A partnership of the benefits of which they have been admitted is" liable to be included in the income of the mother who is a member of that partnership". Section 16(3) of the Act provides: ''In computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxation by the admission of minor children to the benefits of partnership in the father's business. Moreover, the admission "is, as a rule, merely nominal, hut being supported by entries in the firm's book the Income Tax Officer is rarely in a position to prove that the alleged participation in the benefits of partnership is unreal. There is the genuine case which is intended to be relieved by the Income Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 19133, and the question arises as to the nature and extent of the restriction, which will exclude from relief only the case in which a father is attempting to obtain an allowance for what is, in effect, merely the cost of maintenance of his children. We suggest that the income of a minor should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "It is now well-established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought 'to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bosses , namely, geographical or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning of Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. It is then argued that the impugned provision conflicts with Section 40 and that the co-existence of Sections 40 and 16(3)(a)(ii) is contrary to the scheme of the Act, Section 40 reads:- "(1) Where the guardian or trustee of any person being a minor, lunatic or idiot (all of which persons are hereinafter in this sub-section included in the term 'beneficiary') is entitled to receive on behalf of such beneficiary or is in receipt on behalf of such beneficiary of any income, profits or gains chargeable under this Act, the tax shall be levied upon and recoverable from such guardian or trustee, as the case may be, in like manner and to the same amount as it would be leviable upon an....