1. Civil Appeals Nos.861 and 862 of 1984: ' B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.---These appeals arise from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment years concerned are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The question which the Revenue sought to raise reads thus:-- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the minor children of the assessee in the firm, Messrs Harbhagwan Harbhajan Lal (Viramgeron) Chandigarh, was not includible in his individual capacity under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"
2. (Question quoted from the paper book).
3. ' The assessee, Harbhajan Lal, was a partner in a partnership firm, during the relevant accounting years, in his capacity as Karta of a Hindu undivided family. His minor children were admitted to the benefits of that partnership-firm. The Income-tax Officer sought to include the income accruing to the said minors in the income of the assessee, which was objected to by him. The Tribunal agreed with him, whereupon the Revenue applied for referring the above question under section 256(1). It was rejected by the Tribunal. The Revenue then approached the High Court under section 256(2).
4. The High Court refused its request. The High Court was of the opinion that inasmuch as against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sanka Sankaraiah (1978) 113 ITR 313, taking a view similar to the one taken by the Tribunal, this Court has rejected the special leave petition, and also because the Punjab and Haryana High Court itself has taken a similar view in another matter, there was no occasion or necessity to refer the said question.
5. ' We find that the question sought to be raised by the Revenue is concluded against it by the decision of this Court in L. Hirday Narain v. ITO (1970) 78 ITR 26 rendered with reference to section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is in pari materia with section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it obtained prior to the amendment in 1975, with effect from 1st April, 1976)
6. Shah, J. Speaking for the Division Bench, observed (at page 29):-- "Income for the period 19th November, 1949 to 30th September, 1950 being assessed to tax as the income of a Hindu undivided family and not of an individual, section 16(3)(a)(ii) plainly did not apply and the income of the minor children of Hirday Narain could not be included in the income of Hirday Narain assessed as a Hindu undivided family."
7. ' It was also a case where the income accruing to the minors from their admission to the benefits of a partnership-firm was sought to be included in the income of the father who was a member of the partnership-firm--not in his individual capacity but as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family.
8. It was held that the same could not be done. In view of the said decision and also because the law has been altered since 1st April, 1976, we do not think it advisable to examine the question on merits, though we are aware that there is a conflict of opinion among the High Courts on this question. We are also not satisfied that there are good and compelling reasons to depart from the view taken in Hirday Narain (1970) 78 ITR 26 (SC). The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Civil Appeal No,2989 of 1983: ' It is conceded that this appeal has to be dismissed following our decision in Civil Appeals Nos.861- 62 of 1984. Though this case arises under section 64(1)(i), the principle of our decision in Civil Appeals Nos.861-62 of 1984 rendered with reference to section 64(1)(ii) applies equally here. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
11. Civil Appeals Nos.5984-89 of 1983: ' This appeal arises under section 64(1)(ii). The assessment years concerned are 1965-66 to 1967-
68. It is found by the Tribunal as a fact that the father was a partner in the partnership-firm in his capacity as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family. Once this is so, the income of the minors arising from their admission to the benefits of the partnership-firm could not have been included in the father's income, as held by us in Civil Appeals Nos.861-62 of 1984. These appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. No costs.
12. Civil Appeal No,148 of 1993: ' List this appeal on 21st September, 1993, for orders. Civil Appeals Nos.5851-53 of 1983: ' This is a matter arising with reference to section 64(1)(i) before it was amended in the year 1975.
13. The assessm ent years concerned are 1973-74 and 1975-76. It is found by the Tribunal that the husband was the partner in the partnership-firm in his capacity as the Karta of Hindu undivided family. Following the principle of our decision in Civil Appeals Nos.861-62 of 1984, these appeals too fail and are dismissed. No costs.