D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.

1. AT the instance of the assessees the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C') has, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, referred to this court the following question of law :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income of the minor sons of each of the assessees in the firm of M/s. Arvind Cold Storage was rightly included in the individual assessment of the respective assessee ?"

2. THE material facts are these: The assessees, Sahu Madho Prasad and Sahu Govind Prasad, are partners of a firm by name Arvind Cold Storage. The minor son of each of them had been admitted to the benefits of partnership in this firm. Each of them was the karta of his joint family and was a partner in the aforesaid firm on behalf of his joint family. The share of each of these partners in the said firm was assessed to tax in the hands of the respective joint family. In the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, the share of each of the minors in the profits of the firm was treated as the income of his father in his (the father's) individual status and was assessed accordingly.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid inclusion of the respective incomes of the minors, the assessees appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer. Further appeals by the assessees to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (shortly called the Tribunal) were also unsuccessful. As stated earlier, at their instance the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court.

3. BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the assessees and of the learned standing counsel for the income-tax department, we shall set out the relevant provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (shortly called the Act). The relevant portions of Section 64 of the Act, as they stood during the relevant assessment years, read :

"64. Income of individual to include income of spouse, minor child, etc.--In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly--.....

(ii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner;....."

4. THE aforesaid portions of Section 64 of the Act are practically identical with the corresponding portions of Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

However, Section 64 of the Act has been amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act has been renumbered as Clause (iii) and the words "in which such individual is a partner" occurring at the end of Clause (ii), as it originally stood, have been deleted. After such amendment Clause (iii) of Section 64(1) reads :

"(iii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm."

5. THE learned Advocate-General and Shri Ashok Gupta, who appeared for the assessees, contended that the share of each of the minors who had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, in the income of the firm, could not be treated as the income of his father since the latter was a partner not in his individual status, but as the karta of his joint family. In other words, the contention was that it was only where the father of such minor was a partner in his individual status that the share of such minor in the income of the firm, could be treated as the income of the father, but where the father was a partner of the firm not in his individual status but as karta of a joint family, such share income of the minor could not be treated as the income of his father in his individual status. Learned counsel for the assessees submitted that the object of the aforesaid amendment of Section 64 was to treat such share income of a minor as the income of his father irrespective of the father being a partner of such firm in his ind