LAKSHMINARAYAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under art. 226 of the Constitution is filed by the assessee, Lakshminarayan, questioning the validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, under Section 264 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these : THE petitioner filed his return in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1973-74 (accounting year ending November 5, 1972). He did not pay advance tax on the share income of his minor son who was also a partner along with him in the firm of Messrs. Lakshminarayari Kamal Kishore. As he did not pay advance tax on the share income of the minor sort, the ITO charged interest of Rs. 3,290 under Section 217(1A). That led to the petitioner preferring a revision before the CIT under Section 264 of the Act, challenging the levy of interest on the ground that there was no statutory obligation on his part to make an estimate of the income under Section 212(3A) so as to include the share income of his minor son. THE CIT negatived his contention and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition.

(3.) SECTION 64 provides for inclusion of the income of spouse, minor child, etc., in the income of an individual and SECTION 64(3), Clause (iii), says: