Representative capacity in partnership found on facts; no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's conclusion.

A coparcener's admission to partnership in a representative capacity, as found by the Tribunal on surrounding facts and circumstances, did not raise a referable question of law under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proposed questions merely sought to reopen that factual conclusion, and no separate legal issue emerged from the framing of those questions. On that basis, the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that a coparcener entered into partnership in a representative capacity, and not in his individual capacity, gave rise to any referable question of law under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal had examined the surrounding facts and circumstances and recorded a finding that the coparcener joined the partnership as a representative of the Hindu undivided family. The controversy raised in the proposed questions depended entirely on that factual determination. No separate legal issue emerged from the questions framed, as they were only attempts to reopen the Tribunal's factual conclusion.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for reference. The petition was dismissed.

---