MEHROTRA, C. J.: The following questions of law have been referred to this court for opinion under S. 65 (2) of the Indian In­come-tax Act, 1922 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Calcutta Bench 'A': "(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the share income of the minor son from the three firms is liable to be included in the assessment of the father under S. 16 (3) (a) (iv) ? (ii) Whether in view of the fact that there was no contribution of any sum in the Galla and Calcutta firm by the minor son out of the gift money from the father the share income from these two firms was liable to be included in the assessment of the father under S. 15(3) [a)(iv)?" The assessment year is 1059-00, the corresponding previous years being 2014-15 R. J. Years, 2014-15 Diwali year and 2015 Ram Navami. The asscssee Jwalaprasad Agarwala was a partner in M/s. Onkarmal. Jwalaprasad. As disclosed in the books of account he divided the balance of his capital account in four equal Darts and made a gift of a sum of Rs. 74.721/- to each of his four minor sons in July, 1953. Three of his sons have attained majority but the fourth son Parmeshwar Agarwala was 3 minor during the relevant accounting year. He was admitted to the benefits of the partnership in three firms known as (1) Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri (Assam), (2) Jwalaprasad Mulchand (Galla Dept), Dubri, (Assam) and !3) Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Calcutta. The amount which is gifted by the father to the minor Parmesnwar Agarwala is found to have been invested in the firm of Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri. The other fact referred to in the statement of the case is that sum of Rs. 11,000/- out of the credit appearing in the personal account of Farm-ash-war Agarwala in the account books of Jwalaprasad Mul­chand, Dubri is transferred to the firm of Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Calcutta during the previous year for the 1957-58 assessment year. In the firm of Jwalaprasad Mulchand (Galla Dept.), Dhubri, no money of the minor has been invested. The shares of profit which the minor derived from the above three firms were included in the income of father Jwalaprasad Agarwala under S. 16 (3) (a) (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In the firm of Jwalaprasad Mulchand (Galla Dept.), Dhubri, no money of the minor has been invested. The shares of profit which the minor derived from the above three firms were included in the income of father Jwalaprasad Agarwala under S. 16 (3) (a) (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (2) The contention raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was that the shares of profits which the tumor derived from the three firms were not liable to be included in the income of the assessee. Section 16(3) (a) of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: 10 (3) In computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall Tie included - (a) :so such of the) income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly- (i) from the membership of the wife in a firm of which her husband is a partner; (ii) from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm of which such individual is a partner; (iii) from assets transferred directly or indirect­ly to the wife by the husband otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart: or (iv) from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child, not being a married daughter, by such individual other than for adequate consideration;" Admittedly the assessee father is not a partner in any of these firms and thus S. 16 (3) (a) (ii) will net apply. The department claimed that under S. 16(3) (a) (iv) the share of the profit of the minor in the three firms is liable to be included in the income of the father. The share of the profit of the minor in these three firms is the income which is derived from the assets trans­ferred to the minor Parmeshwar Agarwala without any consideration. The Tribunal has found that the minor had been admitted as a partner in Jwalaprasad Ahiichand, Dubri, only because of the introduction of the initial capital of Rs. 74,721/- in his name by his father. So far as the other two firms are con­cerned, the finding is that it is apparent that these are allied concerns and there must be intimate financial connection subsisting between them and Messrs. Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri and the Calcutta firm. 74,721/- in his name by his father. So far as the other two firms are con­cerned, the finding is that it is apparent that these are allied concerns and there must be intimate financial connection subsisting between them and Messrs. Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri and the Calcutta firm. Thus in spite of the fact that each of these firms are paying interest to the minor, the Tribunal held that the share incomes which the minor had been deriving from each of these firms is directly attributable to the introduction of the original capital of Ks. 74,721/- which the assessee had given to his minor son and thus in the opinion of the Tribunal the provisions of S. 10 (3) (a) (Iv) were applicable both in respect of the in­terest on the original capital sum of Ks. 74.721/-and the share incomes of the minor as derived from the above-mentioned three firms. (3) So far as the two firms, namely Jwalaprasad Mulchand (Galla Dept.) Dhubri and Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Calcutta are concerned, there is neither any finding by the Tribunal that the minor contributed any money towards the, capital of these firms out of the sum of its. 74.721/- the amount of money transferred to the minor by his father, the assessee, nor is there any material for coming to such a finding. The Tribu­nal has held that minor's share of profits in these two -firms will, be included in the income of the father, only on the ground that the three firms are allied- firms and there must be an intimate finan­cial connection subsisting between these firms and Messrs. Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri. What would be the extent of the financial connection bet­ween the two and whether any money out of the sum of Rs. 74,721./- transferred to the minor was contributed by the minor towards the capital of the Calcutta and Galla firm cannot be determined by the materials on the record. Thus merely because the minor was admitted to the benefit of these two firms and as there must be some sort of financial connection between the three firms, it cannot be said that the minor's share of profit in these two firms is the benefit directly arising or indirectly aris­ing to the minor from the assets transferred by the as­sessee to him. Section 16 (3) (a) (iv) will thus not be attracted in this case. (4) Mr. Section 16 (3) (a) (iv) will thus not be attracted in this case. (4) Mr. Chaudhuri who appears for the department, has contended that at least a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as ad­mitted to have been transferred from the accounts of the Dubri firm to the Calcutta firm and thus it should be presumed that at least to that extent the minor contribu­ted out of the assets transferred to him by the father to wards the capital of the Calcutta firm. The Tribunal his referred to the transfer of Rs. 11,000/- only in dealing with the question as to whether the interest on this sum is to be excluded from the purview of S. 16 (3) (a) (iv) or not. The Tribunal has held that only the interest on the original capital of Rs. 74,721/- could be included in the income of the father. The interest on the other accre­tions to the capital account of the minor as appearing in the three firms accounts is to be excluded from the assessment of the appellant. Thus there is no finding by the Tribunal that this sum of Rs. 11,000/-was a part of the original capital of Rs. 74,721/-transferred to the minor by the father. Apart from the fact that there is no material to justify a find­ing that this sum of Rs. 11,000/- was the minor's contribution to the capital of the Calcutta firm, there is no material on the record to show that the sum of Rs. 11,000/- transferred to the Calcutta firm from the minor's account in the Dhubri firm formed part of the original capital of Rs. 74,721/- trans­ferred by the father to the minor. (5) The next question which arises for consideration is how far the share of the minor in the partnership busi­ness of Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri to the benefit of which he was admitted, will be included in the income of the father, the assessee. (6) The Tribunal has relied upon two circumstances in support of its finding that the share of the minor in the firm of Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri was his income arising out of the transfer of the assets of the father, the assessee. The first circumstance is that the past record of the assessee shows that this objection was never raised before. The first circumstance is that the past record of the assessee shows that this objection was never raised before. On the other hand, in connection with the assessment for 1953-54 the assessee had claim­ed before the Tribunal that earned income allowance be granted by the Department in respect of the share in­comes of the minor which had been assessed in the hands of the father. The second circumstance is that minor had been admitted as a partner in Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri only because of the introduction of the initial capi­tal of Rs. 74,721/- in his name by his father. As regards the first circumstance pointed out by the Tribunal, the failure of the assessee to raise the said objection in the earlier .proceedings does not debar him from raising the point that the minor's share of profits in the said firm cannot be' regarded as the income of the assessee. This circumstance can also not be regarded as an evidence of the fact that the minor's share of profit in the firm arose out of the assets transferred by the father. The claim of the assessee in the assessment year 1953-54 that he should be granted earned income allowance in respect of the share incomes of the minor, does not also debar the assessee from contending that the share of the minor in the business cannot be regarded as his income under S. 16(3). The decision by the Income-tax Tribunal does not constitute res judicata. Regarding the second circumstance relied upon by the Tribunal, there is no evidence on the record to justify a finding that the minor had been admitted as a partner in Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri only because of the introduction of the initial capital of Rs. 74,721/- -in his name by his father. From the account books it appears that Rs. 74,721/- were taken as minor's deposit in the account books and further, that the minor was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. There is no evidence to show that he was admitted to the benefit of the part­nership because he had undertaken to deposit the sum of Rs. 74,7217 given to him by his father in the firm. 74,721/- were taken as minor's deposit in the account books and further, that the minor was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. There is no evidence to show that he was admitted to the benefit of the part­nership because he had undertaken to deposit the sum of Rs. 74,7217 given to him by his father in the firm. In the absence of any such connection between the de­posit and the admission of the minor to the benefit of the firm, it cannot be said that the minor's share of pro­fit in the firm of Jwalaprasad Mulchand, Dhubri arose out of the assets transferred to him by the assessee. As observed by Cnagia C. J. in the case of Bhogilal Laherchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City' AIR 1955 Bom 16 , - Section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act deals with notional or artificial income and it makes an assssee pay tax on income which in fact is not his own, but which is notionally made to be his income, and therefore Section 16(3) must be very strictly construed, and it is only if a particular income comes within the strict ambit of S. 16 (3) that the assessee can be made liable to pay tax on that income. (7) There is another aspect of the matter which may be examined. Under S. 2 (6 B) of the Income-tax Act a 'partner' has been defined as follows; " 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (IX of 1932): provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership." Section 3 of the Income Tax Act says that where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any year at any rate or rates tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every individual, Hindu undivided family, company and local authority, and Hindu undivided family, company and local autho­rity, and of every firm and .other association of persons or the partners of the firm or members of the association individually. Thus the firm has also been made liable to pay income-tax under this sec­tion. Thus the firm has also been made liable to pay income-tax under this sec­tion. For the income tax purposes the firm may be classified into two categories - (1) those which are registered under Section 26-A and (2) those which are not registered. Under Section 23 the Income Tax Officer has to determine both the tax payable by the fir*n as such and also the total income of each partner, that is, including his share of profits of the firm. The income, however, of the partner, cannot tie taxed twice over once as forming part of the total income of the firm and then as his individual income. A minor, who has been admitted to the benefit of the partnership, is a partner for the purposes of the Income-tax Act and thus his share of profits will be included in his separate income and the income of the firm will also include his share of profit. The Income-tax Act has provided for the contingency to avoid double payment by the partner in the event of the firm paying tax on its total income. If the father is a partner in the firm,' and the-minor's share is regarded as his income under S. 16 (3) (a) (ii), he can avoid payment of taxation if the firm has been taxed. But if the father is not a partner of the firm, in that event if the minor's share of profit is regarded as the father's income, the father will have to pay tax on that income and there being no provision for excluding that amount from the total income of, the firm, the firm may also be made to pay income tax on the said amount and in that event the share of the minor's profit will be liable to double taxation. It is, therefore, clear that the minor's share of profit can be regarded as the income of the father only if S. 16(3)(a)(ii) is attracted. In cases where the father is not a partner in the firm, the share of the minor in another partnership cannot be regarded as the income of the father. It is, therefore, clear that the minor's share of profit can be regarded as the income of the father only if S. 16(3)(a)(ii) is attracted. In cases where the father is not a partner in the firm, the share of the minor in another partnership cannot be regarded as the income of the father. The share which the minor gets in the part­nership business is on account of the fact that he has been admitted into the benefits of the partnership and not as the result, direct or indirect, of a deposit made by him in the firm of the sum of money which he got on transfer from his father. Section 16 (3) (a) (ii) specifically says, - "In computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall be included so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such in­dividual as arises directly or indirectly from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm of which such individual is a partner." When this language is contrasted with S. 16 (3) (a) (iv) it is abundantly clear that 'the share which the minor gets in the business is due to the fact that he has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership and not directly or indirectly as the result of the transfer of the money to him. (8) The argument of Mr. Chaudhuri is that as the minor has been admitted to the benefits of the! partner­ship in lieu of his depositing Rs. 74.721/- which he got on transfer from his father, in the accounts of the firm, the profits which he gets in the business arise out of the transfer of the assets to him. The share of the minor it the partnership business is his income and this income has arisen out of the transfer of the assets. If this argument is accepted, then even if the minor had deposited Rs. 11,000/- out of the sum of Rs. 74,721/- in the accounts of the firm, the profit to the extent of the whole of his share would be regarded as arising from the deposit made by the minor. If this argument is accepted, then even if the minor had deposited Rs. 11,000/- out of the sum of Rs. 74,721/- in the accounts of the firm, the profit to the extent of the whole of his share would be regarded as arising from the deposit made by the minor. This interpretation would not be justified on the language of the section, its I have already indicated earlier, the share of profits which the minor gets in the partnership business is the result of his being admitted to the benefit of the partnership and not the result of his deposit. (9) In our opinion, therefore, both the questions referred to us are to be answered In the negative and the minor's share of profit in any of these firms is not liable to be included in the assessment of the father, that is, the assesses. The assessce will get his costs. The hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/-. Reference answered in negative.