1971 (7) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947 - Whether,the acknowledgment of previous partition is required to be registered - Whether,there was partition of the properties of the assessee s family - whether the High Court has power to reframe the questions raised in a reference

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether an acknowledgment of previous partition requires registration.
2. Determination of whether there was a partition of the assessee's family properties.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of registration requirement for acknowledgment of previous partition
The deceased, Brajamohan Panda, was assessed with agricultural income-tax for the year 1951-52, claiming a partition in 1949. The Tribunal rejected his claim, stating that the unregistered document acknowledging the partition required registration. However, the High Court clarified that a document acknowledging a previous partition does not mandatorily need registration. The document in question merely acknowledged the partition of 1949, making it admissible as evidence of partition. Legal precedents were cited to support the view that such documents do not require registration. Therefore, the High Court answered question No. (1) in the negative, stating that an acknowledgment of a previous partition does not need registration.

Issue 2: Determination of the existence of a partition in the family properties
The Tribunal's rejection of the previous partition claim was primarily based on the unregistered document's inadmissibility and the non-execution of a deed of gift. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal failed to consider all evidence on record, leading to an erroneous conclusion. It highlighted the burden on the assessee to prove partition in a Hindu Mitakshara family and the presumption of jointness among father and sons. The High Court reframed question No. (2) to direct the Tribunal to reconsider all evidence related to partition if the acknowledgment of the previous partition does not require registration. The High Court clarified its power to reframe questions under the relevant Act and cited legal precedents to support this approach. Ultimately, the High Court answered the reframed question affirmatively, directing the Tribunal to reexamine all materials to determine the existence of a partition in the family properties.

In conclusion, the High Court accepted the reference, clarified the registration requirement for acknowledging a previous partition, and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the evidence to determine the existence of a partition in the family properties. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all evidence and upholding the burden of proof in establishing partition in a Hindu Mitakshara family.