Dismissing the petition the Court held that harshness in a statutory provision is no ground to hold that it should not be applied in a given case. If the income of the minor child was to be taxed only after she attained majority, the financial burden on her when she attained the age of majority would be huge and it would be practically impossible to get credit of the tax deducted at source by the bank in the year in which the minor attained majority. Further, the financial hardship to the assessee was not as great as projected. The tax deducted by the bank under section 194A at (10 per cent.) would be available as credit under rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The benefit of threshold exemption was also available. Considering that the assessee would have to bear the tax only on the balance amount and also considering that the interest income on the sum of Rs. 60 lakhs could not create a huge financial burden on the assessee the plea of extreme prejudice or difficulty was rejected. The provisions of section 5 had no relevance. The assessee’s daughter being a minor, the question of her following a system of accounting under section 145 regularly being employed by the assessee did not arise for consideration. The Court held that the provisions of section 64(1A) are not ultra vires in the Constitution of India. K. M. Vijayan v. UOI  (1995) 215 ITR 371 (FB) (Mad) (HC)  wherein the Court held that, A statutory provision can be declared unconstitutional only on the following grounds: (i) violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution; (ii) lack of legislative competence; (iii) violation of the basic structure doctrine; and (iv) manifest arbitrariness. Shayara Bano v. UOI  [2017] 9 SCC 1.  (AY.2013-14)