J U D G M E N T

The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext. P5 order of the 1^st respondent and Ext. P6 order of the 2^nd respondent. According to the petitioners, the income (interest on fixed deposits) accruing to the 2nd petitioner - a minor - cannot be clubbed with the income of the 1st petitioner and that tax at source cannot be deducted in respect of the interest income accruing on the fixed deposit under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 1^st petitioner herein is a regular income tax assessee. The 2^nd petitioner (minor) is the daughter of the 1^st petitioner. The husband of 1^st petitioner / father of the 2^nd petitioner, Vinod Easaw Varghese, died in an accident. The Ist Addl. Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, vide Ext.P3 order in OP(Succession) No. 44/2008 (dated 12.11.2009), held that the 1^st petitioner is entitled to 1/3^rd share and that the 2^nd petitioner is entitled to 2/3^rd share from the estate of the deceased, which includes amounts received as compensation owing to the death of the aforesaid Vinod Easaw Varghese. In terms of Ext.P3 order, the 2^nd petitioner’s share was to be deposited as a fixed deposit in the State Bank of India, and the fixed deposit receipt was to be produced before the Court for safe custody until the 2^nd petitioner attains majority It is the case of the petitioners that the 3^rd respondent Bank cannot deduct tax at source under S.194 A of the Act on the interest income accruing annually on the said fixed deposit of the 2^nd petitioner. The petitioners preferred Ext.P4 application under section 197 (1) of the Act before the 1^st respondent seeking a certificate for non-deduction of tax with respect to interest accruing annually on the said fixed deposit. The 1^st respondent vide Ext.P5 order rejected the said application on the ground that the income of the minor has to be clubbed with the income of the 1^st petitioner (mother of the 2^nd petitioner), for the purpose of taxation under the Act. A revision petition was preferred under Section 264 of the Act before the 2^nd respondent, who vide Ext.P6 order (dt. 02/11/2012), did not find any ground to issue any directions in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Act. The petitioners are therefore before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Sri. D.S. Sreekumaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were entitled to the death benefits of the deceased from his employer and also as part of the motor vehicle accident claim. It is submitted that the 2/3^rd share of the death benefits (an amount of Rupees Sixty lakhs) was deposited in the name of the 2^nd petitioner as per Ext.P3 order of the Court and that the fixed deposit receipt is produced before the Court for safe custody. It is submitted that since the order of the Court clearly stipulates that any payment to be made to the minor only when she attains majority, any benefit (interest income) arising out of the fixed deposit will also be received by the 2^nd petitioner only when she attains majority. It is submitted that in the absence of receipt of any income in the intervening period, tax cannot be deducted at source. It is submitted that since immediate or deferred payment of benefit is not available to the 2^nd petitioner during her minority and the benefit of the fixed deposit together with accumulated interest is payable only after she attains majority; tax cannot be deducted u/s 194 A. It is contended that the 1^st respondent, without appreciating the peculiar fact circumstances in the present case, issued Ext.P5 order. The learned counsel pointed out that, in view of the aforesaid order, the income of the 2^nd petitioner has to be clubbed with the income of the 1^st petitioner (mother of the 2^nd petitioner) as per Section 64(1A) of the Income Tax Act and that the 1^st petitioner is made liable to pay tax for the interest income with resp