Composition benefit for partners cannot be denied where land share is ascertainable and income is aggregated under the statute.

A partner cannot be denied composition merely because the partnership deed does not expressly specify a separate land share, if the partner's proportionate share in the firm's land can otherwise be ascertained. The court also construed section 65(3) to allow composition on the aggregate of income from individual land and the partner's proportionate share in firm land, so the existence of both sources satisfied the statutory condition. On that basis, the objection based on absence of express land-share particulars failed and the cancellation of composition was unsustainable for partners meeting the statutory requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partner can be denied composition merely because the partnership deed does not expressly specify the exact land share, if the proportionate share can otherwise be ascertained; (ii) Whether a partner who has individual land holdings, apart from a proportionate share in the firm's land, is entitled to composition under section 65(3).

Issue (i): Whether a partner can be denied composition merely because the partnership deed does not expressly specify the exact land share, if the proportionate share can otherwise be ascertained.

Analysis: The expression in the deed of the profit-sharing ratio does not by itself make the partner's share indeterminate for all legal purposes. The relevant enquiry is whether the proportionate share of the partner in the land held by the firm can be found out. If that can be done, absence of a separate, express specification of land share does not defeat the statutory benefit of composition.

Conclusion: The denial of composition on this ground was unsustainable and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a partner who has individual land holdings, apart from a proportionate share in the firm's land, is entitled to composition under section 65(3).

Analysis: The provision was read as enabling a partner to seek composition on the aggregate of income derived from individual land and the proportionate share in the firm's land. On that construction, the existence of both sources of income satisfies the statutory condition for composition, and the earlier administrative cancellation could not be sustained where that requirement was met.

Conclusion: Such partners were held entitled to composition and the Commissioner's cancellation was set aside in their favour.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld composition for partners who satisfied the statutory conditions, rejected the objection based on absence of express land-share particulars, and granted relief only to the extent of the cases covered by that construction while leaving the broader controversy concerning partners without individual holdings for further consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute permits composition on the aggregate of income from individual land and a partner's proportionate share in firm land, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the partnership deed does not separately spell out the land share if that share is otherwise ascertainable.

---