{"id":10084,"date":"1999-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999"},"modified":"2018-08-08T12:40:55","modified_gmt":"2018-08-08T07:10:55","slug":"commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income … vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income … vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: S.S.M.Quadri<\/div>\n
Bench: S.P.Bharucha, B.N.Kirpal, S.Rajendra Babu, S.S.M.Quadri, M.B.Shah<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4234 of 1983\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nOM PRAKASH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS.P.BHARUCHA & B.N.KIRPAL & S.RAJENDRA BABU & S.S.M.QUADRI & M.B.SHAH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
DELIVERED BY:\n<\/p>\n
S.S.M.QUADRI,J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  common  question posed in these cases relates  to
\ninterpretation\t of  the  term\t “individual”\tin   Section
\n64(1)(i)(ii)  of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it stood prior
\nto  April  1,  1976).  The conflict of judicial\t opinion  of
\nvarious\t High Courts with regard to connotation of that term
\ngave rise to these cases, which needs to be resolved by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
      For appreciating the question involved in these cases,
\nit  will  suffice  to  refer to the facts  in  Civil  Appeal
\nNo.4234\t of  1983  which  pertains to  the  assessment\tyear
\n1973-74.   The\trespondent was a partner in the\t partnership
\nfirm, M\/s.Rockman Cycle Industries, Ludhiana in his capacity
\nas  Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family.  Two minor children
\nof  the\t respondent,  a\t daughter, Miss Neeru,\tand  a\tson,
\nPankaj,\t were  admitted to the benefits of the\tpartnership.
\nSimilarly,  they  were also partners in another\t partnership
\nfirm,  M\/s.  Munjal Gases, Ludhiana.  The income arising  in
\nthe hands of minor children was sought to be included in his
\ntotal  income.\t That was objected to by him on\t the  ground
\nthat  he was a partner in the firms in the capacity of Karta
\nof  the Hindu Undivided Family, so Section 64 of the  Income
\nTax Act did not apply.\tThe Income Tax Officer rejected that
\ncontention,  included the share income of the minors in\t his
\ntotal  income  and assessed him accordingly.  The  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner\t upheld the order of  the  assessing
\nauthority,  in\tappeal.\t On further appeal, the\t Income\t Tax
\nAppellate  Tribunal,  Amritsar\tset aside the order  of\t the
\nAppellate  Authority taking a contrary view and thus allowed
\nthe  appeal  of the respondent.\t Out of that order,  at\t the
\ninstance of the Revenue, the following question was referred
\nto  the\t High Court under Section 256(1) of the\t Income\t Tax
\nAct, 1961 :\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether\ton the facts and in the circumstances of the
\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that
\nthe  income  of the minor children of the assessee from\t the
\ntwo  firms  was not includible in his individual  assessment
\nunder Section 64(1)(i)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”\n<\/p>\n
      A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
\nanswered  the question in the affirmative, in favour of\t the
\nrespondent-assessee  and  against the Revenue in Income\t Tax
\nReference  No.153  of  1979 by its order dated\tOctober\t 29,
\n1979.\tAgainst\t the  said order and judgment  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tthe  Revenue  is  in   appeal  before  this   Court.
\nInitially,  a two-Judge Bench of this Court in\tCommissioner
\nof  Income-Tax & Ors.  vs.  Shri Om Prakash & Ors.<\/a>   [(1996)
\n217  ITR  785] confirmed the judgment of the High Court\t and
\ndismissed the appeal.  But, on review, that judgment was set
\naside.\t However,  in the meanwhile, a three-Judge Bench  of
\nthis  Court  approved  it in Commissioner  of  Income-\tTax,
\nMadurai vs.  Shri S.S.Krishnamoorthy, Dingigul [TRC Nos.6 to
\n10  of\t1982].\t Thereafter, this case came up\tfor  hearing
\nbefore\ta bench of three learned Judges who referred it\t and
\nother  connected  cases to a larger Bench and thus  all\t the
\ncases have come up before us.\n<\/p>\n
      On the question whether a Karta of the Hindu Undivided
\nFamily\t falls\t in  the   term\t “individual”\tin   Section
\n64(1)(i)(ii)  of  the  Income-tax   Act,  1961\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  ‘the 1961 Act’), there  is  divergence  of
\nopinion\t in various High Courts.  The High Courts of  Andhra
\nPradesh,   Gujarat,  Punjab  &\tHaryana,  Delhi,  Karnataka,
\nKerala,\t and  Rajasthan took the view that the Karta of\t the
\nHindu  Undivided  Family did not fall within the meaning  of
\nthe  expression “individual” in Section 64(1)(i)(ii) of\t the
\n1961  Act.   The  High Courts of Allahabad,  Madras,  Madhya
\nPradesh and Orissa took the contrary view.\n<\/p>\n
      We  have\theard  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nRevenue and assessees.\n<\/p>\n
      Here,  it\t is useful to refer to Section 64(1) of\t the
\n1961  Act,  as it stood prior to 1.4.1976.  It read  thus  :
\n“(1).\tIn  computing  the total income of  any\t individual,
\nthere  shall be included all such income as arises  directly
\nor  indirectly\t– (i) to the spouse of such individual\tfrom
\nthe  membership\t of  the  spouse in a  firm  carrying  on  a
\nbusiness  in which such individual is a partner;  (ii) to  a
\nminor  child  of such individual from the admission  of\t the
\nminor to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such
\nindividual is a partner;\n<\/p>\n
      Explanation  –  For  the purpose of  clause  (i),\t the
\nindividual  in\tcomputing  whose  total\t income\t the  income
\nreferred  to  in that clause is to be included shall be\t the
\nhusband\t or  wife whose total income (excluding\t the  income
\nreferred  to  in  that\tclause) is greater;   and,  for\t the
\npurpose\t of clause (ii), where both the parents are  members
\nof  the\t firm  in which the minor child is  a  partner,\t the
\nincome\tof  the\t minor child from the partnership  shall  be
\nincluded  in  the income of that parent whose  total  income
\n(excluding  the\t income\t referred  to  in  that\t clause)  is
\ngreater;   and where any such income is once included in the
\ntotal  income  of either spouse or parent, any\tsuch  income
\narising\t in any succeeding year shall not be included in the
\ntotal  income  of  the\tother spouse or\t parent\t unless\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer is satisfied, after giving that spouse or
\nparent\tan opportunity of being heard, that it is  necessary
\nso to do.”\n<\/p>\n
      This  provision  occurs in Chapter V of the Act  which
\ndeals  with  income of other persons included in  assessee’s
\ntotal  income.\t It  provides that in  computing  the  total
\nincome of any individual all such income arising directly or
\nindirectly  (i)\t to the spouse of such individual  from\t the
\nmembership  of\tthe spouse in a firm;  and (ii) to  a  minor
\nchild  of such individual from the admission of the minor to
\nthe  benefits  of  partnership\tin a  firm,  in\t which\tsuch
\nindividual  is a partner, shall be included in computing the
\ntotal  income  of such individual.  The Explanation  directs
\nthat  for  purposes of clause (i) partnership income of\t the
\nspouse shall be included in the income of the spouse of such
\nindividual  (husband or wife) whose total income,  excluding
\nthe  income in question, is greater.  So also for purpose of
\nclause\t(ii) it provides that where both such individual and
\nthe spouse are members of the partnership in which the minor
\nchild  is  also a partner, the income in question has to  be
\nincluded  in  the income of that parent whose  total  income
\nexcluding  the\tincome\tin question, is greater.   The\tsame
\nposition  will apply to the succeeding year also unless\t the
\nIncome\tTax Officer holds otherwise after due notice to\t the
\nspouse or parents.\n<\/p>\n
      The   precursor\tof  this   provision   was   Section
\n16(3)(a)(i)   and  (ii)\t of  the   Income  Tax\t Act,\t1922
\n(hereinafter  referred\tto as ‘the 1922 Act’) as amended  by
\nAct IV of 1937.\t While upholding the constitutional validity
\nof  the said provision of the 1922 Act, a Constitution Bench
\nof  this  Court in Balaji vs.  Income-Tax  Officer,  Special
\nInvestigation  Circle,\tAkola  & Ors.<\/a>  [(1961) 43  ITR\t393]
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
      “But it (the relevant provision of the Income- Tax Act
\nwhich enabled the share of each partner of a registered firm
\nto  add to his other income for being charged as part of his
\ntotal  income) gave an effective handle to evade taxation in
\nanother\t direction.   A husband or a father could  nominally
\ntake  his wife or his minor sons in partnership with him  so
\nthat  the tax burden might be lightened, for, if the  income
\nwas  divided between a number of people, the income  derived
\nby  an\tindividual therefrom might fall under the limits  of
\ntaxable\t income\t or under a less onerous slab.\tThis  device
\nenables\t an  assessee  to secure the entire  income  of\t the
\nbusiness  but at the same time to evade income tax which  he
\nwould have otherwise been liable to pay.”\n<\/p>\n
      Section 16(3)(a)(i)(ii) was enacted to prevent evasion
\nof  tax by an individual doing business under a\t partnership
\nentered\t with  his  wife and\/or minor children.\t It  may  be
\nnoticed\t here  that in that case the appellant did not\tbase
\nhis  challenge\tto the said provision as Karta of the  Hindu
\nUndivided Family.\n<\/p>\n
      The  import  of  the expression  ‘any  individual’  in
\nSection\t 16(3)(a) of the 1922 Act fell for consideration  of
\nthis Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh and
\nBhopal\tvs.   Sodra Devi<\/a> [(1957) 32 ITR 615].\tThere  Sodra
\nDevi  and  her major children formed a partnership  firm  to
\nwhich  her  minor children were admitted to the benefits  of
\nthe  partnership.  Under the said provision, share income of
\nthe minor children in the partnership was sought to be added
\nin  the\t income\t of Sodra Devi.\t It was contended  that\t the
\nexpression  `any individual’ did not include ‘the female’ so
\nthe  said income of the minor children was not includible in
\nthe  total  income  of their mother.  By  a  majority,\tthat
\ncontention   was  accepted  holding   that  the\t words\t`any
\nindividual’ and `such individual’ occurring in Section 16(3)
\nare  restricted\t in their connotation to mean only the\tmale
\nbut not the female of the species.\n<\/p>\n
      The  said\t provision  of the 1922 Act is\tembodied  in
\nSection 64(1) of the 1961 Act with the changes that the word
\n`wife’\tis  replaced by the word `spouse’ in clause  (i)  of
\nSection\t 64(1)\tand the explanation is added thereto.\tNow,
\nboth  the male and the female are covered by the expressions
\n`any  individual’ and `such individual’ in Section  64(1)(i)
\nand (ii) of the 1961 Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Here  again  interpretation  of  the  same  expression
\narises,\t albeit in a different context.\t We have to  discern
\nthe  true  meaning of the term ‘individual’ to\tresolve\t the
\nconflict  and  to decide whether the High Court is right  in
\nanswering the question, extracted above, the way it did.\n<\/p>\n
      It  has  been  noticed  above   that  to\tattract\t the
\nprovisions  of\tSection 64(1)(i) and (ii), the\tspouse\/minor
\nchild  should be a partner in the partnership firm  carrying
\non a business in which ‘any individual’ is a partner.  It is
\nonly  then  the share income of the spouse\/minor child\tfrom
\nthat  firm  can be included in the computation of the  total
\nincome\tof  such  individual.  The income  arising  to\tsuch
\nindividual need not necessarily be from the partnership firm
\nalone.\t If  such  individual  has   nil  income  from\t the
\npartnership  firm but has income from other sources then the
\nincome\tof the spouse\/minor child from the partnership\tfirm
\nin  which such individual is a partner will be added to that
\nother income of such individual.  There is no controversy on
\nthis  aspect.  What is put in issue is that when a Karta  of
\nthe  Hindu  Undivided  Family is a partner in the  firm,  he
\ncannot\tbe regarded as an individual for purposes of Section
\n64(1)(i) and (ii) of the 1961 Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Now,  what does the term `individual’ mean?  It is not
\ndefined\t in the Act.  It is not a term of art.\tThe  meaning
\nof  term `individual’ given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary
\nis  :  “single, particular, special;  not general, having  a
\ndistinct  character, characteristic of a particular  person,
\ndesigned  for use by one person, a single member of a class,
\na  single human being as distinct from a family or group,  a
\nperson (a most unpleasant individual)”.\n<\/p>\n
      In  contradiction to a class or a family, the term  is
\nused  to denote a single person, may be a male or female  of
\nthe  species.  In a wider sense, a Karta, a trustee, or\t any
\none  acting in a representative capacity will also be within
\nthe  ambit of the term.\t Is it, in that sense, that the said
\nterm is used in Section 64(1)(i) and (ii) of the 1961 Act or
\nis  it\tused  only in a narrower sense of  one\tentity,\t one
\ndistinct  being, not in a representative capacity?  The Full
\nBench  of the High Court of Allahabad in Sahu Govind  Prasad
\nvs.   CIT  [(1983)  144\t ITR 851]  approving  Madho  Prasad,
\nPilibhit  vs.\tCommissioner of Income Tax [(1978)  112\t ITR
\n492]  and the High Court of Madras in CIT, Tamil Nadu-I\t vs.
\nS.Balasubramanium  [(1984) 147 ITR 732] and in\tCommissioner
\nof  Income-Tax vs.  Shri Manakram [(1990) 183 ITR 382  (MP)]
\ntook the view that the term is used in the said provision in
\nthe  wider sense.  But a contrary view is taken by the\tHigh
\nCourts\tof Andhra Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax\t vs.
\nSanka  Sankaraiah [(1978) 113 ITR 313], Gujarat in  Dinubhai
\nIshvarlal  Patel vs.  K.D.Dixit [(1979) 118 ITR 122], Punjab
\n&  Haryana  in\tCIT vs.\t Anand Sarup [(1980) 121  ITR  873],
\nDelhi in Prayag Dass Rajgarhia vs.  CIT [(1982) 138 ITR 291]
\nand  Full  Bench of Karnataka High Court in Arunachalam\t vs.
\nCIT [(1985) 151 ITR 172].\n<\/p>\n
      Here,  it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction
\nbetween\t the  rights  and  obligations of  partners  of\t the
\npartnership firm and coparceners of Hindu Undivided Family.\n<\/p>\n
      In   Commissioner\t  of   Income\t Tax,\tMadras\t vs.
\nBagyalakshmi & Co.  [(1965) 55 ITR 660], this Court observed
\n:\n<\/p>\n
      “A partnership is a creature of contract.\t Under Hindu
\nlaw  a joint family is one of status and right to  partition
\nis  one\t of  its incidents………Except where there  is  a
\nspecific  provision  of the Income-tax Act  which  derogates
\nfrom  any other statutory law or personal law, the provision
\nwill  have  to\tbe considered in the light of  the  relevant
\nbranches  of law.  A contract of partnership has no  concern
\nwith  the obligation of the partners to others in respect of
\ntheir  shares  of  profit  in\tthe  partnership.   It\tonly
\nregulates  the\trights and liabilities of the  partners.   A
\npartner may be the Karta of a joint Hindu family;  he may be
\na trustee;  he may enter into a sub-partnership with others;
\nhe  may,  under\t an agreement, express or  implied,  be\t the
\nrepresentative of a group of persons;  he may be a benamidar
\nfor another.  In all such cases he occupies a dual position.
\nQua  the partnership, he functions in his personal capacity;
\nqua the third parties, in his representative capacity.”\n<\/p>\n
      We  are  in  respectful agreement with  the  aforesaid
\nobservations.\n<\/p>\n
      When  a  Karta  of  the Hindu Undivided  Family  is  a
\npartner\t in  a partnership firm, he has dual capacity;\t qua
\nthe  partnership, he functions in his personal capacity\t and
\nqua  third  parties, in his representative capacity.   Under
\nthe  Income  Tax Act, when he is assessed in respect of\t the
\nincome\tderived\t by  him  from the  partnership\t firm  as  a
\npartner,  it  is in his representative capacity as Karta  of
\nthe Hindu Undivided Family and not as an individual as such.
\nThat is because his capacity vis-a-vis spouse\/minor children
\nwho  are  members of the Hindu Undivided Family is  that  of
\nKarta  and not as individual though vis-a-vis other partners
\nof  the\t partnership  firm  he\tfunctions  in  his  personal
\ncapacity.   This being the position, the income of a Karta’s
\nspouse\/minor  child cannot be included in computation of his
\ntotal  income  for  that is the income\tof  Hindu  Undivided
\nFamily\tand  not his individual income.\t Section 64 will  be
\nattracted  only\t when  an  assessees  own  income  is  being
\nassessed  and  not that of an Hindu Undivided Family.  If  a
\nKarta is brought within the ambit of ‘individual’ in Section
\n64(1),\tthe share income of the spouse of the Karta and\t his
\nminor children will, in effect, be included in the income of
\nthe Hindu Undivided Family which is not what is contemplated
\nby  Sections  64(1)(i) and (ii) and which, with\t respect  we
\nsay, has rightly been held to be impermissible by this Court
\nin L.Hirday Narain vs.\tIncome-Tax Officer, A Ward, Bareilly<\/a>
\n[(1970)\t  78  ITR  26],\t  Commissioner\tof  Income-Tax\t vs.
\nHarbhajan  Lal<\/a>\t[(1993)\t 204 ITR 361]  and  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-Tax  vs.\t Jayantilal Prem Chand Shah<\/a> [(1995) 211\t ITR
\n111].\n<\/p>\n
      In a Hindu Undivided Family which consists of a Karta,
\nhis  sons,  their wives and minor grand children,  if  along
\nwith  the Karta the spouse of a son and their minor children
\nare  admitted  to  the benefits of the\tpartnership  or\t are
\npartners  of  the partnership firm, obviously,\ttheir  share
\nincome\tfrom  the firm could not be added in  computing\t the
\ntotal  income  of the Karta as in such a case Section  64(1)
\nwill  not be attracted.\t But if the Karta’s spouse and minor
\nchildren  are admitted to the benefits of the partnership or
\nare  joined as partners of the partnership firm, their share
\nincome\tfrom the firm will have to be added up in the income
\nof  the\t Karta.\t  Obviously,  the expression  cannot  be  so
\ninterpreted  to\t yield\tsuch  inequitable  and\tinconsistent
\nresult\twhich  could  not  have\t been  contemplated  by\t the
\nParliament.\n<\/p>\n
      It will be pertinent to note here that under Section 4
\nof  the 1961 Act, the charging section, the total income  of
\nthe  previous  year or years of every person is charged\t for
\nany  assessment year at the rate or rates prescribed by\t the
\nFinance\t Act.  We may notice here the definition of the term
\n‘person’  which is defined in Section 2(31) of the 1961 Act,
\nand reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
      “2(  31).”person” includes – (i) an individual, (ii) a
\nHindu undivided family, (iii)a company, (iv ) a firm, (v) an
\nassociation  of\t persons or a body of indi viduals,  whether
\nincorporated  or not, (vi) a local authority, and (vii)every
\nartificial  judicial  person, not falling within any of\t the
\npreceding sub- clauses.”\n<\/p>\n
      A\t plain\treading of the definition, extracted  above,
\nshows  that  both  ‘an individual’ and\t‘a  Hindu  Undivided
\nFamily’\t are  inter alia constituents of the meaning of\t the
\nterm  `person’.\t The expression ‘any individual’ is narrower
\nthan  the  terms `person’ and ‘assessee’ defined in  Section
\n2(7);\tan individual is a person but every person need\t not
\nbe  an individual.  So also an individual may be an assessee
\nbut  every  assessee need not be an ‘individual’.   Had\t the
\nParliament  intended  to  give\twider meaning  to  the\tword
\n‘individual’  in Sections 64(1)(i) and (ii) so as to include
\nthe  Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family it would have drafted
\nthe   provision\t  differently.\t It  is\t thus\tclear\tthat
\n‘individual’  in Section 64(1) does not take in Karta of the
\nHindu Undivided Family within its import.\n<\/p>\n
      Yet another aspect which militates against bringing in
\nKarta within the meaning of the term ‘individual’ in Section
\n64(1)  is  that it speaks of total income of any  individual
\nand  total income of the Hindu Undivided Family need not  be
\ntotal income of Karta as an individual.\n<\/p>\n
      The  object of Section 64(1) of the 1961 Act, like the
\nobject of Section 16(3) of the 1922 Act, is to check the tax
\nevasion\t resorted to by individuals forming partnership as a
\ncloak to perpetrate fraud on taxation.\tBut cases of genuine
\npartnership  where any individual takes the spouse and minor
\nchildren  as  partners will also be within the\tclutches  of
\nSection\t 64(1), a fact adverted to by Balaji’s case (supra).
\nIt  is\ttrue  that if Karta is held not to fall\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of the term ‘individual’ in Section 64(1), the\t tax
\nevasions sought to averted would continue in the case of the
\nHindu  Undivided  Family where a Karta takes the  spouse  or
\nminor  children\t to  the benefits of the partnership  or  as
\nmembers\t in  the  partnership firm.  But it cannot  be\tlost
\nsight  of  that ‘individual’ and Hindu Undivided Family\t are
\ntwo  different\ttax  entities and Parliament has  chosen  to
\nconfine the application of Section 64(1) for purposes of tax
\nevasion in regard to individuals without being Kartas of the
\nHindu  Undivided  Family  in the fold of section  either  by
\ndefining  individual or otherwise.  On the ground that Karta
\nof a Hindu Undivided Family will draw an unfair advantage of
\nthis  interpretation,  we cannot enlarge the meaning of\t the
\nterm  ‘individual’ by the process of interpretation so as to
\nrope  in  Karta within the meaning of the term\t‘individual’
\nand  by\t implication, the Hindu Undivided Family within\t the
\nclutches of Section 64(1) of the 1961 Act.\n<\/p>\n
      From  the above discussion, it follows that income  in
\nthe  hands of Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family as partner
\nof  a  partnership  firm  cannot be  treated  as  income  of
\nindividual  and,  if that be so, the income arising  to\t the
\nspouse\tor  minor child of the Karta of the Hindu  Undivided
\nFamily\tcannot\tbe  included  in his income  as\t such  under
\nSections 64(1)(i) and (ii) of the 1961 Act.\n<\/p>\n
      For  the\tabove reasons, we are inclined to  take\t the
\nview  that  the\t expressions   `any  individual’  and  `such
\nindividual’  in\t Sections 64(1)(i) and (ii) are employed  in
\nrestricted  sense  and\tdo not include a Karta\tof  a  Hindu
\nUndivided  Family.  Accordingly, we approve the judgments of
\nthe  High  Courts  of  Andhra  Pradesh,\t Gujarat,  Punjab  &
\nHaryana, Delhi, Kerala, Rajasthan and Karnataka and overrule
\nthe  judgments\tof  the High Courts  of\t Allahabad,  Madras,
\nMadhya Pradesh and Orissa taking a contrary view.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  light of the above discussion, we answer\t the
\nquestion,  referred to above, in the affirmative, in  favour
\nof the Assessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
      In   the\t result,  Civil\t  Appeals   Nos.    4234\/83,
\n2979-81\/89,    10629-\t  10631\/95,\t2900\/80,    2287\/80,
\n2335-41(NT)\/91,\t 968-970(NT)\/91,   1222(NT)\/87,\t 1222-23\/86,
\n11553-11554\/95,\t 1217-19\/86, 37\/88, 2435-39(NT)\/95 and\tC.A.
\nNo.________\/99 arising out of S.L.P.   (C) No.  1608\/80  filed by the
\nRevenue against the orders of the High Courts are dismissed;
\nin  Civil  Appeals  Nos.309- 311(NT)\/85,  654-55(NT)\/85\t and
\n650-652(NT)\/87,\t filed\tby the assessees, the orders of\t the
\nMadras\tHigh Court are set aside, the questions referred  to
\nare  answered  in  the\taffirmative,   i.e.,  in  favour  of
\nassessees  and\tagainst\t the  Revenue and  the\tappeals\t are
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
      T.R.C.  No.1\/83 is allowed.  We shall take it that the
\nfollowing question is referred to us:\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether,\t the Appellate Tribunal was justified and in
\nlaw  correct in holding that the share income determined  by
\nthe assessee’s wife from M\/s.  Madurai Mahalakshmi Agencies,
\ncannot\tbe included under Section 64 of the Income-tax\tAct,
\n1961  in the total income of the assessee who is assessed in
\nthe status of an individual?”\n<\/p>\n
      and  we  answer  the question in\tthe  affirmative  in
\nfavour of the assessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
      There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income … vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999 Author: S.S.M.Quadri Bench: S.P.Bharucha, B.N.Kirpal, S.Rajendra Babu, S.S.M.Quadri, M.B.Shah CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4234 of 1983 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA RESPONDENT: OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/1999 BENCH: S.P.BHARUCHA & B.N.KIRPAL & S.RAJENDRA BABU & S.S.M.QUADRI & M.B.SHAH JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income ... vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income ... vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-08T07:10:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income … vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T07:10:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3628,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income ... vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T07:10:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income … vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income ... vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income ... vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-08T07:10:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income … vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999","datePublished":"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T07:10:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999"},"wordCount":3628,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999","name":"Commissioner Of Income ... vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T07:10:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-vs-om-prakash-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income … vs Om Prakash on 27 July, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10084","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}