COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PRATIMA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of ours would dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 8 of 1996, 9 of 1996, 2 of 1997 and 7 of 1997, Counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts of the case be picked up from Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996 (CIT, N. E. Region, Shillong v. Smt. Pratima Saha). In the said Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996 the following questions have been referred :

(2.) HAVING reproduced the questions of law referred to us by the Tribunal, the facts of Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996 must now be adverted to. In the firm, Saha Clinic and Nursing Home, Dr. M. L. Saha and Sri Tarit Kanti Saha had 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. share of profit and loss, respectively. The aforesaid two partners are husband and son of the assessee who has been paid the salary by the firm for rendering service by her as nurse-cum-supervisor. Admittedly, the assessee did not furnish any certificate evidencing that she has undergone any training in any institution. However, she was having a degree of B.Sc. in Bio Science. She was admittedly receiving salary right from the assessment year 1983-84.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Revenue has strenuously argued that the salary and remuneration paid to the wife from the firm should be included in the income of the husband as he had substantial interest in the firm having 60 per cent. share and that the assessee does not possess technical or professional qualification and the income earned by her cannot be said to be solely attributable to the application of her technical or professional knowledge and experience. COUNSEL has further argued that the assessee in order to bring her case within the ambit of the proviso, must satisfy both the conditions, namely, possession of technical or professional qualifications and the income earned by her must be solely attributable to the application of her technical or professional knowledge or experience. According to counsel, if the assessee does not satisfy the first condition, i.e., possession of technical or professional qualifications, the proviso in that case would not apply and the reference to the second condition in such a situation would be unnecessary. COUNSEL has further argued that the taxing statute is to be interpreted strictly and that there was no scope for liberal or harmonious construction. The first part of the proviso, according to counsel for the Revenue, Cannot be diluted by reference to the expression "knowledge and experience" in the second part of the proviso. There cannot be any scope for mixing up two parts of the proviso, according to counsel.