High Court's reference jurisdiction is advisory only; Tribunal findings control, and joint family ownership must be proved by the party asserting it.

In an income-tax reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court must answer the legal questions on the facts found by the Tribunal and cannot recast the factual basis as though exercising appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal's findings, if supported by evidence, form the foundation for the reference. The text also explains that section 25A has no application where the dispute is not about partition of admitted joint family property, but about whether the income-producing property was ever shown to be joint family property. In that setting, the burden remains on the party asserting joint family ownership, and the department must prove that the income belonged to the Hindu undivided family.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court could go behind the Tribunal's findings of fact and recast the factual basis of the reference. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 had no application and in placing the burden on the department to prove that the agricultural income in Pakistan belonged to the Hindu undivided family.

Issue (i): Whether, in a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court could go behind the Tribunal's findings of fact and recast the factual basis of the reference.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the High Court on a tax reference is advisory, not appellate. It must proceed on the facts found by the Tribunal and can interfere with those findings only where there is no evidence to support them. The agreed statement of case and the Tribunal's findings, once accepted in the reference, form the factual foundation on which the legal questions must be answered. The High Court therefore could not ignore the Tribunal's factual conclusions or investigate a different factual case not adopted in the reference.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in going behind the Tribunal's findings of fact; the question had to be answered on the facts found by the Tribunal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 had no application and in placing the burden on the department to prove that the agricultural income in Pakistan belonged to the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The dispute was not about a previously joint family property that had been partitioned, but about whether the income-producing property was ever proved to be joint family property at all. In the absence of evidence showing that the property belonged to the Hindu undivided family, the presumption of jointness could not be invoked against the assessee. The person asserting that property is joint family property must establish that fact, and on the material before the Tribunal the onus did not shift to the assessee. Section 25A, which deals with partition of joint family property, therefore had no application to the controversy as framed and decided.

Conclusion: Section 25A did not apply, and the burden remained on the department to prove that the income belonged to the Hindu undivided family; this was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference questions were answered in favour of the assessee on the Tribunal's findings, because the High Court had incorrectly reassessed the facts and the department had not discharged the burden of proving family ownership of the income-producing property.

Ratio Decidendi: In an income-tax reference, the High Court must answer the questions of law on the facts found by the Tribunal and cannot reappraise those facts as if in appeal; where ownership of property as joint family property is asserted, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting it unless the record supports a contrary presumption.

---