ORDER
R.K. Gupta, J.M.
1. This is an appeal by Department against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 27th June, 1994, relating to asst. yr. 1993-94. The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Department :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that only the net income as computable in the hands of the minors has got to be clubbed in the hands of the assessee under Section 64(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. The learned CTT(A), thus, has wrongly directed the AO to allow deduction of Rs. 35,000 under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961 @ Rs. 7,000 in respect of each child separately.
2. That the order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts be set aside and the order of the ITO be restored.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee shown income from plying of truck, capital gains, and interest/dividend. The assessee had also included income of five minor children from interest/dividend under Section 64(1A) of the IT Act. While computing the income the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-I at Rs. 35,000 @ Rs. 7,000 per minor children. The AO allowed the deduction of Rs. 7,000 only by holding that the income has to be clubbed under Section 64(1A) and after clubbing the income, only one deduction can be allowed under Section 80-I, of the Act. The AO further allowed deduction of Rs. 7,500 @ Rs. 1,500 per child under Section 10(32) of the Act.
3. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. S.K. Nayak (1984) 145 ITR 791 (Kar) and in the case of Addl. CIT v. H.L Gulati (1982) 138 ITR 648 (All). After considering the submissions and perusing the ratio of the Hon’ble High Courts, the CIT(A) was of the view that assessee deserves to succeed in his appeal. Accordingly he directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-I @ Rs. 7,000 per child. Now the Department is in appeal here before the Tribunal against these findings of the CIT(A).
4. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order of the AO. It was further stated that exemption allowable under Section 10(32) has already been allowed by the AO. Therefore, there is no provision in the Act to allow a separate deduction on account of each child. Accordingly it was requested to restore the order of the AO. On the other hand, the learned counsel of the assessee reiterated the submissions before me, as made before the CIT(A). Further the reliance was placed on S.K. Nayak’s case (supra) and CIT v. Lalji Agarwal (1998) 234 ITR 820 (All). It was further stated that the jurisdictional High Court has allowed the appeal of assessee on similar facts. It was further stated that in the case of jurisdictional High Court the income of wife was added in the hands of the husband and no deduction was allowed under Section 16 to the wife. The Hon’ble High Court has directed that separate deduction is allowable to assessee on the income added on behalf of the wife. Therefore, it was stated that the facts are similar, as here in this case the minor’s income was added in the hands of the father. Accordingly separate deduction is allowable under Section 80-I and the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, I find that the appeal of the Department has to be allowed. The amendment under Section 64(1A) came w.e.f. 1st April, 1993, which is applicable to asst. yr. 1993-94 onwards. The case here before the Tribunal is for the asst- yr. 1993-94. Therefore, the amendment in the provisions of Section 64(1A) is applicable on the facts of the present case. The amended provisions of Section 64(1A) are as under :
“64(1A). In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises or accrues to his minor child…..”
The exemption provided on account of clubbing of income of-minor child under Section 64(1A) is provided under Section 10(32), which is as under:
“10(32). In the case of an assessee referred to in Sub-section (1A) of Section 64, any income includible in his total income under that sub-section, to the extent such income does not exceed 1,500 rupees in respect of each minor child whose income is so includible.”
6. Therefore, in my considered view, as per provisions of law, only deduction which is allowable to the assessee is Rs. 1,500 per child as prescribed under Section 10(32) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has fairly allowed these deductions @ Rs. 1,500 per child totalling to Rs. 7,500. He has further allowed a deduction of Rs. 7,000 to the assessee under Section 80-I, as this deduction is allowable on the total income of the individual. Under Section 80-I, only one deduction is allowable which the AO has already allowed to the assessee. Therefore, in my considered view, no further deduction can be allowed to the assessee.
7. I have considered the case laws relied upon by the assessee. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lalji Agarwal (supra), has held that if the salary income of the wife is added to the income of the husband, then net salary income of the wife after allowing standard deduction, is to be clubbed with that of her husband and not the gross salary income. This case pertains to asst. yr. 1976-77. Therefore, in my considered view and with due respect, it is not applicable on the facts of the present case, because of the amendment has taken place on the statute w.e.f. 1st April, 1993. Accordingly the amended provisions will be applicable on the present case and amended provisions are very clear. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee does not deserve for separate deduction on account of each child under Section 80-I, as only one deduction can be allowed. The assessment has been completed in the status of individual, therefore, only one deduction can be allowed. Of course, if separate assessments are to be made, then in that case, separate deductions can be allowed to all the five children. It is worth mentioning here that upto the asst. yr. 1992-93, the separate returns were filed and separate assessments were completed and separate deductions were allowed to the five minor children. The assessee was well aware of the amendment on the statute. Therefore, he himself clubbed the income of the minor children under Section 64(1 A) and filed one return. Accordingly, one deduction has to be allowed, otherwise there is no meaning of clubbing of income of the minor child. Even and otherwise if the intention of the legislature would have to allow the deduction separately, then it could have been separately mentioned in the statute. The intention of the legislature is very clear. The only deduction which was separately allowable was under Section 10(32), which has already been allowed to the assessee. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, I reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO.
8. In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed.