Partition in definite portions: business allocations by book entries suffice but unpartitioned jewels and immovables keep family assessment.

A father's Mitakshara power to partition with minor sons can produce valid legal effects despite unequal allotment and is voidable only at the instance of the aggrieved minors; such unequal partitions are recognised for tax apportionment. For income-tax purposes a partition must divide joint family property into definite portions appropriate to each asset: physical division where practicable and clear book-entry allocation for businesses. Here business interests were effectively allotted and excluded from family income, but jewels and certain immovables were not partitioned into definite portions, so the family remains assessable as undivided for those assets.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partition effected by a Hindu father between himself and his minor sons is valid and effective notwithstanding an unequal allotment; (ii) Whether the partition in this case satisfied the requirement of "partition in definite portions" under Section 25A of the Income-tax Act for income-tax assessment purposes.

Issue (i): Validity of a father's partition despite unequal allotments.

Analysis: The father's power under Mitakshara law to effect a partition between himself and his sons may be exercised without the sons' consent; such a partition, if unequal, is voidable at the instance of the aggrieved sons (or upon their attaining majority) but is not void ab initio. The right of avoidance is personal to the minors and until repudiated the partition produces legal effects. Section 25A(2) recognises unequal partitions by providing for apportionment of tax according to the portions allotted.

Conclusion: The partition of the businesses effected by the father is valid and effective until avoided by the minor coparceners; the revenue has no authority to ignore the partition solely on the ground of inequality.

Issue (ii): Whether the partition in the present case constituted a partition "in definite portions" under Section 25A.

Analysis: Section 25A requires a partition of family property into definite portions before the family ceases to be treated as an undivided family for assessment. Mere disruption of status (definition of shares) without partition of the properties in definite portions is insufficient. The meaning of "definite portions" depends on the nature of the property: where physical division by metes and bounds is practicable (e.g., land, houses) such division (or an equivalent clear allocation of parts of each item) is ordinarily required; where physical division is impracticable (e.g., business) division by appropriate book entries and allocation of capital, receipts and expenses is sufficient. Income from properties actually partitioned ceases to be income of the undivided family; income from properties not partitioned remains assessable to the family under Section 25A(3).

Conclusion: Although the businesses were validly divided (by entries and allotments) and their income excluded from family income after division, the jewels and certain immovable items were not physically or otherwise divided into definite portions; therefore there was no complete partition "in definite portions" under Section 25A and the family must be treated as undivided for assessment purposes in respect of the properties not partitioned.

Final Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal's finding that there has been no partition within the meaning of Section 25A of the Income-tax Act is upheld: the business division is effective but the overall partition is incomplete because movables (jewels) and certain immovables were not partitioned into definite portions, hence Section 25A does not permit separation of assessment for the whole family property.

Ratio Decidendi: For income-tax purposes under Section 25A a partition must effect a partition of the joint family property into definite portions ascertained in a manner appropriate to the nature of each asset (physical division where practicable; clear book-entry allocation for businesses); mere severance of status or definition of shares alone is insufficient to displace assessment of the undivided family.

---