Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It was submitted before the CIT (A) that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54F in the hands of the minor as the minor has no other residential premises of his own. It was further submitted the observation of the Assessing "Officer that only a person who has assessed to tax could avail the benefit is incorrect. It was submitted that an individual includes a minor, a lunatic or an Idiot, the assessment of such person however requires to be done in accordance with the provisions of Section 160. It does not mean that such an individual losses his status of assessee though such persons are considered as deemed assessees under Section 2(7) of the I.T.Act, 1961. He, further submit that under Section 64(1-A) while computing total income of an individual, shall included of such incomes as arise or accrues to his minor, (not being a minor children having or any disability of nature satisfied under Section 80U). The word income which occur in Section 64 has the meaning attached to it in Clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act, under which income includes any capital gains chargeable under Section 45. Section 45 in turn provides that any profit or gains arising from the transfer of capital asset property of any kind held by assessee etc., vide Section 2(14) effected in the previous year shall save as otherwise provided in Section 54, 54B, 54D. 54E, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to I.T.Act, 1961 under the head capital gains and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. For the above prepositions assessee also relied on the decision reported in 145 ITR 791 in the case of CIT v. S.K. Naik, CIT v. Segu Harnath, 171 ITR 318, 321 (A.P.). Thus, it was submitted minor is an assessee and he is entitled for all the deductions contemplated under the Act while computing the income taxable even if such incomes are clubbed with other person under Section 64 of the Act. The learned CIT (A) held the issue is assessee's favour. He held that income includes capital gains. He held that though income is to be clubbed in the hands of the parents as per the settled law, the clubbed income shall be include under the same head of income as in the hands of the real owner of the income for all purposes, is also a settled law. He held placing reliance on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. S.K. Nayak 145 ITR 791 that what ever deductions due to a person even if his/her income is clubbed with other person, the deduction due to him should be allowed. This was a case where a wife received salary being Director of the Company for which the assessee was the Managing Director. The Hon'ble High Court held that the salary of the wife could be clubbed with that of her husband only after allowing the standard deduction. In the case reported in 171 ITR 318 in the case of CIT v. Segu Harnath, the Hon'ble A.P. High Court held that if minor assessee borrows income for the business benefit, his income is clubbed with that of his parent. He is entitled for deduction before fixing the taxable income. Thus he held in sum and substance the judicial decisions are that the income to be clubbed should be computed as per the provisions of the Act in the hands of the real owner of the income and the resultant income only should be clubbed. He, further held the minors income as claimed is entitled to be exempted under Section 54F as he was not having a house of his own. He further held that there is no bar in the case of minor owning house and if he has permitted to own a house definitely he is also entitled for deduction. In the instant case, since he was not having house of his own, he held the exemption claimed is to be accrued. Aggrieved by the above order, revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.