Partition and assessability of family plantation income turned on whether the alleged division was genuine or sham.

Agricultural income from family plantations was said to depend on whether a genuine prior partition had taken place, because a real partition by status or by division of property would require the income allotted to each member to be assessed separately rather than clubbed as Hindu undivided family income. A document described as a settlement deed could not be treated as decisive by its label alone; its true character depended on the substance and surrounding material. The finding that the 1951 partition was sham was held unsustainable because relevant evidence, including separate possession and recognition by tax authorities, had not been properly considered, and the question of ancestral character and actual partition required fresh reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agricultural income from the family plantations was liable to be assessed in the hands of the karta as income of a Hindu undivided family, or separately in the hands of the members on the footing of a prior partition, and whether the Commissioner's finding that the partition was sham was sustainable.

Analysis: The claim for separate assessment depended on the reality and legal effect of the alleged partition and the settlement deed said to evidence it. A document styled as a settlement deed could not by its nomenclature determine its true character. If there had been a real partition, whether by division in status or by actual division of properties, before the relevant assessment period, the income allotted to the respective members could not be clubbed as family income. The Commissioner's conclusion that the partition of 1951 was sham was unsustainable because relevant material had not been properly considered, including material suggesting separate possession and recognition of the partition by the commercial tax authorities. The question whether the properties were ancestral and whether there had in fact been a partition required reconsideration on the entire material.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's order could not stand and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh on the question of partition and the proper assessability of the income.

---