Partition in definite portions requires ascertainment of shares not literal metes and bounds; bank deposit ownership finding sustained on evidence.

Section 25-A requires definite ascertainment of members' shares for recognition of a partition; physical division by metes and bounds is not mandatory, and partitions resulting in co ownership or tenancy in common satisfy the provision (result for assessee). Separately, the Income Tax Officer's factual finding that certain bank deposits did not belong to the named women was supported by evidence (differences in account histories, excessive interest claims and relative bank credits), so that ownership conclusion was upheld (result against assessee).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 25-A of the Income Tax Act requires an actual partition of family property by metes and bounds as a condition precedent to recognition of a partition under Section 25-A; (ii) Whether the Income Tax Officer's finding that certain deposits did not belong to the ladies in whose names they stood is supported by any evidence.

Issue (i): Whether Section 25-A requires partition by metes and bounds before recognising a partition for income-tax purposes.

Analysis: Section 25-A contemplates that the Income Tax Commissioner must be satisfied that (a) the Hindu joint family has disrupted and (b) the joint family property has been partitioned among members or groups in definite portions. The dispute turns on the meaning of "partitioned in definite portions." The Court held that the statutory language contemplates ascertainment of definite shares and permits partition among groups or co-owners; it is not limited to physical division by metes and bounds. In trading businesses, practical partition may consist of ascertaining and recording definite shares rather than literal metes and bounds; such ascertainment may be by consent or otherwise and satisfies the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: Section 25-A does not mandate partition by metes and bounds; a partition evidenced by definite ascertainment of shares satisfies the provision (decision in favour of the assessee on this issue).

Issue (ii): Whether the Income Tax Officer's finding that deposited money did not belong to the named ladies is supported by evidence.

Analysis: The Court considered the factual materials as set out in the statement of case and observed that differences in account commencement years, excessive interest rates claimed, and relative bank credits provided evidential support for the Income Tax Officer's conclusion. Prior allowance in earlier years does not bind the Officer in a subsequent year; the matter was one of fact for which evidence exists.

Conclusion: The finding that the deposits did not belong to the ladies is supported by evidence (decision against the assessee on this issue).

Final Conclusion: The reference is answered: Section 25-A does not require partition by metes and bounds but does require definite ascertainment of shares; the factual finding regarding ownership of the deposits is supported by evidence, resulting in mixed relief to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Section 25-A of the Income Tax Act, a "partition in definite portions" is satisfied by a definite ascertainment of members' shares (including partitions resulting in co-ownership or tenancy in common), and need not be a physical partition by metes and bounds.

---