Case: Seth Mathuradas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, M. P. and Bhopal

The facts of the case are these. Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1956 relates to assessment years47 andand Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1959 relates to the assessment years0. The accounting years in both the appeals were Samvat years. The appellant in C. A. No. 139 of 1956 was the karta of a Hindu undivided family which consisted of the appellant, his wife and three sons. The family owned and possessed various moveable and immoveable properties and businesses and were being assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The appellant as the karta of the family brought about a disruption of the Hindu undivided family. There was a partition on October 16, 1944, and the deed of partition was executed on December 30, 1944, and was registered on January 2, 1945. The appellant claimed that the partition was given full effect to and, therefore, the members of the disrupted family applied under section 25A and section 25(4) of theAct claiming exemption and reduction of tax liability for the various years of assessment and also prayed for an order under section 25A. TheOfficer rejected the application holding that there was no partition as alleged by the appellant and that the deed of partition was not meant to be acted upon. The appellant then went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed and so was the appeal to the Tribunal. The appellant applied under section 66(1) for a reference to the High Court on five questions of law but this application was also dismissed. Thereafter, he applied to the High Court under section 66(2) of theAct and the High Court directed the Tribunal to state the case on the followingWhether there is in this case any legal evidence to support the inference of the Tribunal that the partition in question was not genuine and meant to be acted uponhe partition in questionwhich was set up was one dated October 16, 1944. The case was stated but the reference was decided against the appellant. Against that order the appellant has come to this court on a certificate of the High Court. In our opinion no question of law arises in this appeal. It was held by the Tribunal, on the material before it, that the partition which was evidenced by the deed was not genuine and the partition was not acted upon. In our opinion, the High Court, on this finding, rightly held against the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed withAppeal No. 207 of 1959 is equally without substance and must be dismissed. As has been said above, that appeal relates to the assessment years0. On May 6, 1950, the respondent, Mathuradas, filed a civil suit praying that the partition as evidenced by the deed dated December 30, 1944, be declared null and void and a fresh partition be made between the parties. The Union of India was sought to be made a party to the suit but on its objection the court refused this prayer. The court held the partition evidenced by the deed of partition to be genuine, fair and binding on all the parties and that the joint family had ceased to exist as from December 30, 1944. Once again the respondent, Mathuradas, applied under section 25A of theAct but this application was also dismissed. On appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, it was decided in favour of Mathuradas, respondent, excepting in regard to a house at Bikaner. The Commissioner ofapplied for a reference under section 66(1) of theAct but it was rejected. The Commissioner then applied to the High Court under section 66(2) of the Act and the High Court ordered a reference to be made but answered the question referred in favour of the respondent and against the Commissioner. The question referred was" Whether there was any legal evidence before the Tribunal for the finding that a partition was effected in I944 and it was genuine ?is against this judgment and order that the Commissioner has come in appeal to this court.

Reasoning: Considering the additional facts which were placed before the Tribunal and on which it had given a finding in favour of the respondent, Mathuradas, the High Court held that there was, material in favour of the partition set up. It was argued before us that it was really the same partition and there was nothing fresh to support the genuineness of the partition and that the partition which had been held not to be genuine cannot now be held ratified. But the partition set up in this case was of December 30, 1944, whereas the partition set up in the earlier case was of October 16, 1944. As the High Court has pointed out on the additional facts which were proved before the Tribunal including the statements on oath of the sons of the respondent and the other relevant material it cannot be said that there were no materials before the Appellate Tribunal for finding in favour of the respondent and in favour of the partition being genuine.