1960 (11) TMI 6 - SC - Income Tax

Whether 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 upon? Held that - As 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. The decision of the High Court was right and this appeal must also fail and is dismissed with costs.

Issues:
1. Validity of partition claimed by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1956.
2. Application of section 25A and section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act for exemption and reduction of tax liability.
3. Dismissal of application by the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal.
4. Reference to the High Court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act.
5. Decision of the High Court on the genuineness of the partition.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the validity of the partition claimed by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1956. The appellant, as the karta of a Hindu undivided family, brought about a disruption of the family through a partition executed on December 30, 1944. However, the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the partition was not genuine and was not meant to be acted upon. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider if there was legal evidence to support the partition's genuineness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.

2. The application of section 25A and section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act for exemption and reduction of tax liability forms another crucial issue. The appellant sought exemption and reduction of tax liability for the assessment years based on the claimed partition. Despite the appellant's efforts, the authorities dismissed the application, leading to a series of appeals and references to the High Court and ultimately to the Supreme Court, which upheld the decisions against the appellant.

3. The third issue involves the dismissal of the appellant's application by the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal. Despite the appellant's contentions regarding the genuineness of the partition, the authorities consistently ruled against the appellant, leading to a prolonged legal battle culminating in the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeals.

4. The reference to the High Court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act was sought by the appellant to challenge the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the partition's genuineness. The High Court's decision played a significant role in determining the outcome of the appeals before the Supreme Court, as it directed the Tribunal to reexamine the evidence supporting the partition's validity.

5. Finally, the decision of the High Court on the genuineness of the partition was a pivotal aspect of the case. The High Court, based on additional evidence presented before the Tribunal, found merit in the partition claimed by the appellant. Despite arguments against the partition's genuineness, the High Court's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

← Previous Next →