Babu, J.@mdashThe proviso to section 64(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been invoked by the assessee. While the revenue contends that the
assessee is not entitled to the benefit of that proviso, the Tribunal has found that the assessee, along with a partner, is in the business of running a
printing press wherein the husband of the assessee one Ramalingam was employed as manager on a salary of Rs. 8,400 for the assessment year
1982-83 and which was Rs. 17,200 for the year 1983-84; that the business was carried on initially as a proprietary concern of the assessee
wherein her husband had been working as manager by receiving a salary and before his employment in the said business, he had been working
from the year 1965 in a similar business elsewhere on salary. Ramalingarn has, thus, had a long experience in this line of business, first under
others, later as a manager of his wife''s business and still later as the manager of the business run by the firm in which his wife, along with another
handicapped person, was a partner.
2. The Income Tax Officer sought to include the salary paid to the said Ramalingam in the computation of income of the assessee on the ground
that amount had been paid to the spouse of a partner, relying upon section 64(l) of the Act. On an appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
deleted the said amount and the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The learned counsel for the revenue
contended, as has been considered before the Tribunal, that the said Ramalingam does not possess a degree or diploma in printing or management
and, therefore, notwithstanding his undisputed long experience in the field and also the undisputed fact that the business in which he worked was
owned by a firm constituted of a lady and a handicapped person as partners, the salary paid to him is necessarily to be included in the income of
his wife. We are unable to agree with that submission.
3. The object of clubbing the income of the spouses, when one has a substantial interest in the firm, is not to penalise the spouses, who choose to
engage themselves in the same business, but to ensure that the income of one is not diverted as the income of the other, thereby escaping or
considerably reducing the amount of tax properly payable on the income of the spouse, who has a substantial interest in the concern. In order to
prevent the spouse who has a substantial interest in the concern claiming to have incurred the expenditure by way of salary to his or her spouse
thereby reducing the taxable income of the spouse, the section provides that the concern must have received a real benefit by the employment of
the spouse and if the salary paid is for the services actually rendered and as a result of which the concern has benefited, the salary paid is not to be
artificially construed as the income of the spouse who has a substantial interest in the concern. The artificial income of the spouse to the extent of
inclusion of the salary paid to the spouse has to be limited to those circumstances which were in the view of the Parliament when this section was
enacted. Interpretation of that provision must be with a view to promote the object and the artificiality of the income is not to be extended beyond
the limits contemplated by the Parliament.
4. The provision u/s 64(1) declares that the salary paid to the spouse will not be treated as the income of the spouse who has substantial interest in
the concern in cases where the employed spouse possesses technical or professional qualifications and the income is attributable to the application
of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience. The fact that the spouse has a qualification is insufficient. What is much more
important is that the salary paid to that spouse has been paid for the application of the knowledge and experience of a technical or professional
nature possessed by the spouse for the purpose of the concern of which the other spouse is the holder of a substantial interest. In a given case, if
that concern has benefited from the professional or technical knowledge and experience of this employed spouse, the salary paid to that spouse is
not to be included in the income of the other. In interpreting the words, ''technical and professional qualifications'' regard must necessarily be had to
the persons to whom the Act is intended to apply. The Act is applicable to all persons who earn an income which is taxable under the Act. The
Act does not make a distinction as between those who are educated and others who are uneducated, or, the level up to which they might have
been educated, for the purpose of making the income earned by them liable to tax. The income earned by the individual for and in consideration of,
the services rendered by him or her is ultimately his or her income and to the extent such income is in excess of the limits up to which the income is
exemptible from tax, tax is payable by the persons who receive the income. There is no legal base against a spouse being employed or rendering
services to a concern in which the other spouse has a substantial interest. Income earned by a spouse for the services rendered, such services
being real and not wholly artificial, is normally taxable in the hands of the receiver.
5. The words ''technical or professional'', therefore, must receive a liberal construction as that term is not defined in the section itself or elsewhere
in the Act. The word ''technical'' is a term of wide import and can apply to a variety of circumstances and situations and a much wide range of
subjects. Any task required to be performed in an orderly and methodical manner which requires some skill and knowledge for performance and
which also involves some degree of complexity, can be regarded as ''technical''. The fact that ordinarily the term ''technical'' is used in relation to
things mechanical or electrical or anything associated with machinery does not warrant limiting the scope of the term having regard to the context in
which it has been used in section 64. Similarly, the word ''professional'' is again a term of wide import. The varieties of professions are endless. The
range is as wide as the variety of activities that human beings undertake or are capable of undertaking. The number of professions grows with
further specialisations and sub-divisions of what were once regarded as one profession. The term ''profession'', if understood in a general way,
would apply to any regular course of activity performed by a person which constitutes the sources of his livelihood. To an unskilled labourer, his
profession is doing manual work while to a nuclear physicist his profession is to carry out research or other work in his highly specialised field of
activity. The range in the kinds of profession is vast.
6. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the technical and professional'' qualifications and experience in the context of the facts which are required
to be considered in a given case. The fact that the spouse of a person who has a substantial interest in a restaurant happens to be a highly skilled
physician, is neither here nor there, so far as section 64 is concerned. But, if the spouse happens to be a person who has knowledge of food and
beverages and in the management of restaurant and he manages the restaurant for his spouse, the fact that he has not attended any college in hotel
management or received a diploma cannot stand in the way of the salary paid to him by the firm being treated as his own income and not the
income of the other spouse.
7. Regard must, therefore, be had to the nature of the business carried on by the concern, the nature of the technical or professional knowledge
and experience usable in that concern and the kind of technical or professional qualifications, knowledge and experience possessed by the spouse
to whom the payment is made from that concern for the services rendered by that person.
8. In this case, it is undisputed that the spouse, here the wife, who has an interest in the concern as a partner has no knowledge in the business of
running of the press. Her partner is a handicapped person. The partners being the owners of the concern and both of them not being in a position
to run the business directly by themselves, the employment of another person as a manager is fully justified. If, instead of employing the spouse of
the partner another person had been employed and the same salary had been paid to that other person, section 64 could not have been invoked by
the revenue. The fact that the employer happens to be the spouse and not a third party should not make a difference so far as the taxability of the
amount paid as salary for the genuine services rendered by the spouse is concerned.
9. The spouse in question here is admittedly a person who has several decades of experience in managing a printing press. He had been employed
as a manager in a press before he started managing the press which was initially owned by his wife and continued as manager of the press owned
by a firm in which his wife and a handicapped person are partners. The business of that firm apparently is wholly dependent on the official
management of the same by the husband of the assessee. The fact that he does not possess a diploma or degree in printing or in management from
an Institute of Printing Technology or of Management or from a University does not make the value of his services to the business any less nor
make his working as a manager of the business, unreal. The salary paid to him, is, therefore, to be regarded as his own income and not the income
of his wife, merely on account of the fact that the two are spouses. So long as the spouse who is employed is qualified by his knowledge and
experience to render service by using that knowledge and experience, to the business of the firm, the firm benefits from such service and the
payment made to the spouse is genuine and bona fide, the benefit of the proviso is available to such a spouse. Section 64(l) cannot be read as
creating an irrebutable presumption that the spouses intend to avoid tax and that the employment of a spouse in a business in which other spouse
has a substantial interest is only meant to be a device to deprive the state of its legitimate revenue.
10. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal holding that the salary paid to the spouse is not to be included in the income of
the assessee.
11. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
