Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1965, decided on 5th December 1967.

Income tax Act (XI of 1922)----

---

S. 16(3)(a)(ii) (as unamended in 1965) Partnership Minor admitted to benefits of partnership in which mother was a partner Share income of minor children, held, cannot be included in total income of mother Words "any individual" do not include female.

The words "any individual" in section 16(3) refer to an individual capable of having a wife or a minor child and therefore, it is clear that this expression has been used in a restricted sense and does not include a female. Thus the share income of the minor children could not be included in the total income of the mother.

Commissioner of Income tax, Karachi v. Mst. Khatija Begum (1965) 12 Taxation 95 (S C) rel.

Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Appellant.

Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Respondent.

S. A. RAHMAN, J.

This is an appeal by special leave from an order passed by the High Court of West Pakistan on a reference under section 66(1) of the Income tax Act. The question referred to the High Court is in the following terms :

"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the share income of the assessee's minor children arising from a partnership, to the benefits of which they were admitted, were liable under the provisions contained in section 16(3) (a)(ii) of the Act, to be included in the total income of their mother who was also a partner in that firm."

The question was answered by a Division Bench of the High Court in the negative. As a question of the true interpretation of section f(3)(a)(ii) of the Income tax Act was involved in the case, special leave to appeal was granted to the Commissioner of i nco)me tax.

The High Court took the view that the words "any individual" occurring in section 16(3)(a) of the Act did not include a female. The precise question raised on this appeal came up for consideration in this Court in The Commissioner of Income tax, Karachi v. Mst. Khatija Begum (P L D 1965 S C 472). It was held by the Full Court in that case that the words "any individual" in section 16(3) of the Act refer to an individual capable of having wife or a minor child and therefore, it is clear that this expression has been used in a restricted sense and does not include a female. In the face of this decision Mr. Abdul Haq, the learned counsel for the appellant found it difficult to press the appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.