SUSHILA DEVI JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee, Smt. Sushila Devi Jain, was a partner in a firm known as "M/s Raj Motors" which was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 1st April, 1961. She was a partner till 31st August, 1961. The other partners were, Shri P. S. Jain, Smt. Sukhari Devi, Smt. Sushila Devi, Master Raj Kumar, Master Ravi Kumar and Kumari Renu. For the asst. year 1962 -63 (for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1962, the assessee filed her return at Calcutta on March 21, 1963. Part III of the return at p. 4 required the following details to be given in a case where the assessee filing the return was a partner in a firm :

(2.) IN the return filed by the assessee the name and address of the firm was given; the names of all the partners including the assessee was mentioned but without any indication as to whether Master Ravi Kumar, Master Raj Kumar and Kumari Renu were major partners or minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership; the residential address of all the partners was given as 7 -A, Rajpur Road, Delhi; and the individual shares of the several partners were specified. But the column which required the assessee to state the relationship of the partners with the assessee was left bank. It appears that at the time of the assessment a copy of the partnership deed dated April 1, 1961, had also been filed before the ITO, Calcutta. The original assessment of the assessee for 1962 -63 was completed on March 30, 1963, including in the assessment, her share income from the firm above mentioned.

(3.) EARLIER , on June 11, 1962, the assessee had filed a return in Delhi on behalf of Master Ravi Kumar as his guardian as he was a minor. In this return was shown the share income of the minor from the firm of M/s Raj Motors for the financial year 1961 -62. The ITO who completed the assessment on March 21, 1964, excluded the share income from the firm referable to the period from April 1, 1961, to August 31, 1961, from the assessment of Master Ravi Kumar on the ground that since he was the minor son of Smt. Sushila Devi who was also a partner in the firm during the said period, his share of income referable to this period was liable to be included in the hands of the present assessee on account of the provisions of S. 64(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The same thing happened in the case of Master Raj Kumar and Kumari Renu in whose cases returns had been filed on their behalf by their father, Shri R. C. Jain.