1. PATHAK C.J.I.----This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta answering the following question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share of profit of the assessee's wife was includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(l) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"
2. The assessee was assessed in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1962-63 corresponding to the previous year March 26, 1961, to April 13, 1962. At the material time, the assessee was a partner in a firm, Messrs Ramesh & Co., with a share of eight annas therein. The balance was shared by three other partners the assessee's father, Kunjilal Agarwala, the assessee's brother, Hariram Agarwala and a stranger, Jagdish Prasad. On November 10, 1960, and on November 28,1960, the assessee made two gifts of Rs. 21,000 and Rs. 30,000 respectively to his wife, Kaushalya Devi, from his account m the firm On November 28, 1960, he made another gift of Rs.
3. 11,000 to his mother, Chili Bai, from that account. It may be observed that Chili Bai received another gift of Rs. 20,000 from her husband, Kunjilal, effected by similarly drawing from hi. Account with the firm.
4. The assessee's wife, Kaushalya Devi, as well .As his mother, Chili Bai became partners with three other persons in a newly constituted firm, Messrs Kunjilal Hariram & Co. The three other partners were the assessee's grandfather, Moharilal Agarwala, the assessee's brother, Hariram Agarwala and the stranger, Jagdish Prasad Gupta. The partnership deed dated November ltd. 1960, provided that the business was to commence from November 12, 1960. The preamble to the deed stated: "Whereas the partner of the fifth part who has extensive experience and outstanding talent of organisation in jagree and grains trade but little finance requested the partners of the first four parts to enter into co-partnership with him on contributing the necessary finance to carry on business in jagree and grains and also act as commission agents in a jagree grains and allied commodities to which request they acceded."
5. Clause 4 of the partnership deed stipulated: "That the partners of the first four parts shall initially contribute Rs 25,000 each to be put in within six months from the commencement of the partnership. The said contributions augmented by further deposits and profits or depleted by withdrawals and losses shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The amount, if any, standing to the credit of the partner of the fifth part shall carry interest at the same rate."
6. On November 12, 1960, Kaushalya Devi contributed Rs. 21.000 as capital, which came out of the gift made by the assessee on November 10, 1960. She also contributed Rs. 30,000 as capital, which amount, came out of the gift made on November 28, 1960.
7. An appeal by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who observed that the wife would not have become a partner of the firm unless she had contributed capital, and as the capital was provided by the husband, the inclusion of the wife's share of income in the assessm ent of the assessee was justified.
8. The High Court has taken the view that the share of profits arose to the assessee's wife primarily because the partnership made a profit and although it had connection with the gift, it did not arise as a result of the gift, that the income arose from the share of profits only because the other partners agreed to take the assessee's wife as partner and was allowed to contribute to the partnership firm, that the admission of the assessee's wife to the partnership was not in consequence of the gift, and that, therefore, upon all those circumstances, the connection between the income of the share of profits and the gifts by the assessee to his wife was too remote to be included within the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
9. Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time, provides: "64(1) In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly--
(iii) subject to the provisions of clause (i) of section 27, to the spouse of such individual from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the spouse by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart:..--- The income may arise directly or indirectly, but there must be a proximate connection between the accrual of the income and the assets transferred by the assessee. In CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh [1970] 77 ITR 27, this Court held that the income of the minor sons, who had invested capital in the firm out of moneys gifted to them by their father (the assessee), could not be included in the assessment- of the assessee. The Court observed (p.30): "Before any income of a minor child can be brought within the scope of section 16(3)(a)(iv), it must be established that the said income arose directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly by his father. There is no dispute that the assessee had transferred to each of his minor sons, a sum of Rs. 75,000. It may also be that the amount contributed by those minors as their share in the firm came from those amounts. But the question still remains whether it can be said that the income with which we are concerned in this case arises directly or indirectly from the assets transferred by the assessee to those minors. The connection between the gifts mentioned earlier and the income in question is a remote one. The income of the minors arose as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. It is true that they were admitted to the benefits of the partnership because of the contribution made by them. But there is no nexus between the transfer of the assets and the income in question. It cannot be said that that income arose direct or indirect from the transfer of the assets referred to earlier. Section l6(3) of the Act created an artificial income. That section must receive a strict construction as observed by this Court in CIT v.
10. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel [1965]55 ITR 637. In our judgment before an income can be held to come within the ambit of section 16(3), it must be proved to have arisen--directly or indirectly--from a transfer of assets made by the assessee in favour of his wife or minor children. The connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate. The income in question must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it."
11. It seems to us that the observations of this Court in that case fully cover the case before us. There is no doubt that the wife became a partner because of the capital contributed by her in the firm, but, as observed by the High Court, in the judgment under appeal, it was upon agreement by the remaining partners that she became a member of the partnership. The mere contribution of capital by the wife to the firm would not automatically have entitled her to partnership in the firm.
12. The partnership was based on agreement, and it is the event of agreement between the partners that brought the assessee's wife into the firm as partner. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies on CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 156 1TR 323 (SC), CIT v. Jwalaprasad Agarwala (1967) 66 ITR 154 (SC), V.D.
13. Dhanwatey v. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 365 (SC) and Mohini Thapar v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 208 (SC), but we are not satisfied that those cases are of any ass1stance to the Revenue. Reliance was placed on Potti Veerayya Sresty v. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 194 (AP), where the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the inclusion of the wife's income from cloth business carried on by her, into which cloth business she had invested a portion of the assets transferred by the assessee. It is sufficient to observe that the cloth business was her own business and, as the High Court pointed out, there was no necessity to depend upon the agreement of others. It is on that basis that the High Court d1stinguished Prem Bhai Parekh's case (1970) 77 ITR 27 (SC).
14. We are of the view that the High Court is right in answering the question referred to it in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.