JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. K. Sikri J.-The facts in brief, which give rise to present appeal filed by assessee against impugned judgment dated October 24, 2003, passed by High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital, are as under: brother-in-law of appellant, namely, Shri Ram Niwas Agarwal had created two trusts for benefit of two minor children of appellant, Kapoor Chand. One trust known as Priti Life Trust was for benefit of Km. Priti who was aged about 7 years and other trust was created in name of Anuj Family Trust for benefit of master Anuj, minor son of appellant, Kapoor Chand. Both these trustees became partners in partnership firm. said partnership firm earned profits in year 198081 with which we are concerned in present appeal and share of two trusts was given to them. Since these trusts were for benefit of two minor children of appellant, invoking provisions of section 64(1)(iii) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act), Assessing Officer included said income in income of assessee and taxed as such. appellant contested assessment by filing appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed appeal by order dated January 30, 1996, holding that since minors had no right to receive income of trusts till time they were minors, provisions of section 64(1)(iii) read with Explanation 2A of Act would not be attracted. It would be relevant to mention here that one of important terms of both trust deeds was that income so earned by trusts shall not be received by two minors during their minority and will be spent for their benefits only once they attain majority. Another fundamental clause in both trust deeds was that in case any of beneficiaries dies before attaining majority, his/her share would be given to other sibling. Department challenged aforesaid order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"). Tribunal allowed appeal and set aside order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Dissatisfied with outcome, appellant approached High Court of Uttaranchal by way of appeal filed under section 260A of Act which appeal has been dismissed by High Court. vide impugned judgment dated October 24, 2003, affirming order of Tribunal. Undeterred, Kapoor Chand v. Asst. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 212 (Uttaranchal). appellant approached this court by filing special leave petition and leave was granted. This is how present appeal has come up for final hearing. Before we take note of contention advanced by learned counsel for appellant challenging correctness of impugned judgment, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant provisions of Act. Section 64(1)(iii) as well as Explanation 2A thereof read as under: "64. (1) In computing total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly-... (iii) to minor child of such individual from admission of minor to benefits of partnership in firm: Explanation 2A.-For purposes of clause (iii), where minor child of individual is beneficiary under trust, income arising to trustee from membership of trustee in firm shall, to extent such income is for benefit of minor child, be deemed to be income arising indirectly to minor child from admission of minor to benefits of partnership in firm." It is clear from plain reading of aforesaid section that while computing total income of any individual income of minor child of such individual from admission of minor to benefits of partnership in firm is to be included as income of said individual. Explanation 2A clarifies that if minor child is beneficiary under trust, income arising to trust from membership of trustee in firm shall also be treated as income of child and provisions of subclause (iii) of section 64(1) shall get attracted even in that eventuality. In present case, as is clear from facts narrated above, no doubt two In present case, as is clear from facts narrated above, no doubt two minor children of appellant were beneficiaries under two trusts. It is also not in dispute that said trustees were partners in firm and had their shares in income as partners in said firm. However, entire controversy revolves around question as to whether it could be treated as income of "minor child". This controversy has arisen because of reason that income that had been earned by trustees was not available to two minor children till attaining age of majority. As pointed out above, this was one of conditions contained in trust deeds that income so generated by trust, shall not be given to or spent for benefit of minor children till they attain majority and money was to be handed over to them only on attaining majority which would mean that income was available to these persons when they cease to be minors. This very question came up before this court in almost identical circumstances in case of CIT v. M. R. Doshi [1995] 211 ITR 1 (SC). court, after taking note of some judgments of High Courts including judgment of High Court of Bombay in Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 602 (Bom) interpreted provisions of section 64(1)(v) of Act in following manner (page 4 of 211 ITR): "Section 64(1)(v) requires, in computation of total income of assessee, inclusion of such income as arises to assessee from assets transferred, otherwise than for adequate consideration, to extent to which income from such assets is for immediate or deferred benefit of, inter alia, his minor children. specific provision of law, therefore, is that immediate or deferred benefit should be for benefit of minor child. Inasmuch as in this case deferment of benefit is beyond period of minority of assessee's three sons, since assets are to be received by them when they attain majority, provisions of section 64(1)(v) have no application." Since judgment of Bombay High Court in Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal (supra) has been affirmed by this court, on going through said judgment of High Court of Bombay we find that there is very detailed discussion while interpreting provision mentioned therein. In this case, Bench comprising Tulzapurkar and Desai JJ. (as their Lordships then were) wrote separate but concurring opinion. Justice Desai in his opinion gave three reasons for coming to conclusion that income which is not to be given or spent for benefit of child so long as he is minor, his income cannot be treated as income of "minor child" and taxed at hands of individual. These reasons can be summarised as below: "(i) benefit which may be immediate or deferred must still be benefit of minor child. In view of fact that said expression is still retained in relevant provisions it is not possible to accept argument that the'deferment' can be beyond minority of child. If enjoyment of benefit is postponed beyond minority of child it cannot be fairly regarded and accepted as benefit even deferred for minor child. (ii) In order to attract provision, minor child must have direct benefit of interest in income and assets transferred to trustees. Where trust contains stipulation that income is to be accumulated and added to corpus it cannot be held that child has any direct benefit in that income. (iii) Benefit, if any, receivable by child must be certain and vested. It cannot be mere possibility of benefit or benefit available on fulfilment of contingency." In present case, as pointed out above, specific stipulation which is contained in both trust deeds is that in case of demise of any of minor income would accrue to other child. Therefore, receipt of said income is also contingent upon aforesaid eventuality and two minors had not received benefit immediately for assessment year in question, viz., as "minor" children. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that aforesaid stipulation in trust deeds is devised mainly to have income escaped in hands of individuals and it was precisely reason because of which Explanation 2A was inserted by Finance Act, 1979. In support, he has produced memo corresponding provision in Finance Bill, 1979, and referred to paragraph 55 thereof which reads as under: "55. Under another existing provision, income arising to minor child from admission to benefits of partnership is included in income of that parent who has higher income, although neither of parents is partner in firm to benefits of which minor is admitted. With view to countering device for circumventing this provision through interpolation of trust, it is proposed to provide that where minor child of individual is beneficiary under trust and trustee joins in any partnership business with any person, income arising to trust, to extent it is for benefit of minor child, will be included in total income of that parent who has higher income." We are afraid aforesaid explanation does not help Department. provision that is contained in Explanation 2A is only to take care of income even when trust is created. It does not go further and make any provision to effect that even when income earned by trust cannot be utilised for benefit of minor during his minority Explanation 2A shall be attracted. We do not find any stipulation even in said Explanation. Moreover, language of section 64(1)(iii) is clear and categorical which makes income of minor child taxable at hands of individual. Thus, in first instance it has to be shown that share of income is at hands of minor child which requirement is not satisfied in present case. We may add that Department is not remedyless inasmuch as income earned by two minors would not go untaxed. On attaining majority when aforesaid money in form of income is received by two individuals it would be open to Department to tax income See [1979] 116 ITR (St.) 108, 122. at that time. Or else, Department could take up their cases under section 166 of Act if permissible. However, that course of action was not taken by Department in present case. In view of aforegoing conclusions we are of view that impugned judgment dated October 24, 2003, of High Court does not lay down correct proposition of law. This civil appeal is accordingly allowed and impugned judgment dated October 24, 2003 passed by High Court is set aside. *** Kapoor Chand (Dead) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax