Disruption of Hindu family status requires assessment as tenants-in-common, and revision cannot rest on procedural lapses alone.

Where a Hindu family's joint status is disrupted by agreement and the members hold the property in equal shares, the income is assessable in the status of tenants-in-common under the charging provision applicable to that status. The record showed that the claim of partition had been examined and the legal effect of severance considered, so a procedural lapse in notice or enquiry did not by itself create a revisional error. Suo motu revision could not be invoked unless the appellate order disclosed an error of law. The appellate order restoring assessment as tenants-in-common was therefore upheld as lawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 36 when the appellate authority had held that the family status stood disrupted and the members were assessable as tenants-in-common under sections 3(3) and 30 of the Act.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the agreement by which the members of the family severed their joint status and agreed to hold the property in equal shares. The assessing authority had examined the claim of partition and rejected it, but the appellate authority found that the joint family status had been disrupted and, on that basis, directed assessment as tenants-in-common. The revisional authority proceeded on the footing that absence of notice under section 30(1) vitiated the enquiry, yet the record showed that the claim of partition had been examined and that the legal effect of disruption had been considered. The Court held that, once disruption of status was established, section 3(3) applied and the income had to be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common. It further held that any lapse in the manner of enquiry or notice could not furnish jurisdiction for revision where the appellate order disclosed no error of law.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision, and the appellate order restoring assessment in the status of tenants-in-common was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi: Where disruption of a Hindu undivided family is established, the members are assessable as tenants-in-common under the charging provision applicable to that status, and suo motu revision cannot be invoked in the absence of an error of law in the appellate order.

---