Genuineness of partnership is a factual issue where evidence supports the Tribunal's finding against the assessee.

The Tribunal's finding that a legally valid partnership was not genuine was upheld because the dispute turned on factual evidence, including the actual admission of minors to partnership benefits, the guardian's conduct, the non-withdrawal of profits, and the treatment of credited amounts. The distinction between the legal validity of the partnership and its genuineness as a matter of fact was recognised, but the controversy was treated as factual rather than one of law. As the finding was not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership, though legal, was not genuine.

Analysis: The issue turned on factual findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding the actual admission of the minors to the benefits of the partnership, the conduct of the guardian, the non-withdrawal of profits, and the treatment of the credited amounts. The conclusion that the firm was not genuine was not challenged as perverse or as unsupported by evidence. The distinction between genuineness as a factual question and validity of a partnership in law was noted, but the controversy in the case was held to be one of fact.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership, though legal, was not genuine, and the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue.

---