TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on share income from a firm in Bijapur, His three minor sons were admitted for the benefits of partnership in a firm at Hole-Alur, in which the assessee was not a partner. Therefore, his minor sons were assessed on the share income received by them individually till the assessment year 1976-77 till the amendment came into effect from 1975 onwards. At the time of assessment of the firm, the assessee brought the above fact to the notice of the ITO who took action under section 147/148 and assessed the three minors' income in the hands of the assessee. Penal proceedings were initiated for not showing the income of the minor sons from the firm under section 64 of the Act as forming part of his total income. The assessee appealed. 3. The CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s from the firm as forming part of his total income as provided under the provisions of section 64 of the Act. It is the finding of the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee is not liable to show the share income of the minor sons as forming part of his income. It is true that before the amending provision which came in force w.e.f. 1-4-1975, there was no column in the Return of income to show the income of the minors. In this case the share income of the minors has been added to the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80. It was the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities that the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) were not applicable. The assessee appealed against the inclusion and also moved an applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come because she had not shown the shares of her husband and her minor daughter in the two firms as forming part of her total income in the return submitted by her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held : " (1) that the amounts representing the shares of the spouse and the minor daughter in the firms were part of the respondent's income for the purpose of assessment to tax and had to be shown in the return filed by her. In view of the Note in the return the respondent failed to disclose those two amounts in the return submitted by her and there was plainly and manifestly a breach of the obligation imposed by section 139(1) requiring the assessee to furnish a return of her income in the prescribed form, and in failing to do so the respondent was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was held in this case that even if there were any printed instructions in the form of the return requiring the assessee to disclose the income received by his wife and minor child from a firm of which the assessee was a partner, there was, in the absence in the return of any "head under which the income of the wife or minor child could be shown, no obligation on the assessee to disclose this item of income, and the assessee could not be deemed to have failed or omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. With the greatest respect to the learned judges who decided this case, we do not think, for reasons already discussed, that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... D being income arising to spouse/minor child/son's wife/son's minor child or any other person or association of persons. " Therefore, it is clear that as per the Form of Return itself, subsequent to the amendment, the assessee is bound to show the income arising to the spouse or minor child as forming part of his total income for the purpose of assessment. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has failed to show the share income of this three minor sons from the firm as forming part of his total income. Further, the income arising to the three minor sons of the assessee from the firm has been made as additions to the income of the assessee. From the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it is clear that the assessee is guilty of....