Partial partition must be proved genuine, while separate transfers to minor daughters require independent scrutiny for interest allowance.

The alleged partial partition of a Hindu undivided family was held not to be genuine because it rested mainly on account-book entries and the karta's affidavit, while surrounding circumstances and lack of supporting material showed it was sham and nominal. The finding that the partition failed did not, however, finally determine the separate question whether transfers to the minor daughters were independently valid for interest allowance purposes. That transfer issue required an independent examination of the materials and was remitted for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged partial partition of the Hindu undivided family was genuine. (ii) Whether the transfer of funds to the minor daughters and the related claim for interest required separate consideration apart from the partition issue.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged partial partition of the Hindu undivided family was genuine.

Analysis: The alleged partition rested essentially on entries in the account books and the karta's affidavit. The surrounding circumstances, including the earlier stand that there had been a complete partition and the failure to produce supporting material showing that the entries were real and acted upon, justified scrutiny of the transaction's genuineness. A transaction found not to be true in its entirety could not be accepted as true in part merely because a later plea of partial partition was advanced.

Conclusion: The alleged partial partition was not proved to be genuine and was treated as sham and nominal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer of funds to the minor daughters and the related claim for interest required separate consideration apart from the partition issue.

Analysis: The transfer to the daughters was capable of being viewed as an independent transaction and not necessarily as part of any partition arrangement. The finding that the partition was not genuine did not by itself dispose of the separate question whether the amounts standing in the daughters' names were validly transferred so as to justify interest allowance. That issue required an independent examination of the materials.

Conclusion: The interest issue was not finally decided on merits and had to be considered afresh by the Tribunal, in favour of the revenue only to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The answer on the partition question went against the assessee, while the interest-related issue was left for fresh consideration by the Tribunal as a separate matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a transaction is found to be not genuine, it cannot be accepted as true only in part; and a separate transfer capable of constituting an independent gift or disposition must be examined on its own merits even if the associated partition plea fails.

---