Anandi Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. 1. this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, is to answer the following question of law :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the minors received interest on their capital accounts and, therefore, the interest income was includible in the total income of the assessee within the meaning of section 64(1)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. relevant assessment years are 1976-77 to 1978-79. the assessee claimed exclusion of the interest income received by the minors, rajkumar and mangilal, admitted to the benefits of partnership in the computation of the total income. it was contended by the assessee that the minors were not under any obligation to contribute to the capital of the partnership and, therefore, the interest income was their deposit. the income-tax officer rejected the contention. ultimately, the tribunal also has rejected the assessee's contention. it has been held that the interest income in question received by the minors during these years from the partnership was rightly included while computing the total income of the assessee in accordance with section 64(1)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961. hence, this reference at the instance of the assessee.3. no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the tribunal or the reasoning on which that conclusion is based. the provision contained in section 64(1)(iii) of the act is quite clear and it supports the view taken by the tribunal. consequently, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by holding that the view taken by the tribunal is justified. there will be no order as to costs.