TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (2) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sons of the assessee as a result of their admission to the benefits of partnership is liable to be included and assessed in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding that the assessee had no income of her own from any source whatsoever to which the income earned by the minor could be included ?" The relevant facts are that one Sri Narendra Kumar was a partner in a firm styled as Messrs. Malik Chemical Works, Bulanala, Varanasi. The said Sri Narendra Kumar died leaving behind him the present assessee as his widow and five minor sons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Rajendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar. After the death of the said Sri Narendra Kumar, the aforesaid minors were admitted to the benefits of the said partnership f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, their income has to be included in computing the total income of the assessee. The assessee's contention, however, is that the language used in section 64(1) shows that an assessee should have some other income of her own to which the income of the nature referred to in the aforesaid sub-clause (iii) could be added. According to learned counsel for the assessee, since admittedly the assessee has no other income of her own, there is nothing to which the share income of the minors can be included. Such a contention is not being raised for the first time before this court. It has already been raised before several other High Courts and rejected. This contention was raised in a writ petition before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court in CIT v. L.N. Horkeri [1986] 162 ITR 513, by the Patna High Court in CIT v. Rameshwarlal Jawanpuria [1992] 197 ITR 606, by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Sanyasi Mohapatra [1991] 188 ITR 602 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Manakram [1990] 183 ITR 382. Thus, as many as five High Courts have negatived the arguments like those advanced by learned counsel for the assessee before us and learned counsel on either side in spite of their best efforts could not trace any precedent in which such a contention may have been accepted. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, placed reliance on Addl. CIT v. H. L. Gulati [1982] 138 ITR 648 (All) in which while dealing with the provisions of section 23 of the Act, this court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) is significant ; it does not say that "in computing the total income of any individual, there shall be added to his other income all such income as arises directly or indirectly". If such had been the language, then probably the contention raised on behalf of the assessee could have been accepted. We may mention that language similar to the one used in section 64 has been used in several provisions of the Act. We find similar expressions in sections 60, 61, 67, 67A, 182(1)(ii) to speak only of a few of them. If the interpretation advanced on behalf of the assessee is accepted, all such provisions of law would become unworkable where an individual has no other source of income. We may, for the sake of illustration, refer to section 182(1)....