TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent and in favour of the partition being genuine. The decision of the High Court was right and this appeal must also fail and is dismissed with costs. - - - - - Dated:- 22-11-1960 - Judge(s) : J. L. KAPUR., M. HIDAYATULLAH., J. C. SHAH JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by KAPUR J.---These are two cross appeals which arise out of two orders and judgments of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Nagpur. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1956 is the assessee and that in Civil Appeal No. 207 of 959 is the Commissioner of Income-tax. The facts of the case are these. Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1956 relates to assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 and Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1959 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court directed the Tribunal to state the case on the following question : " Whether there is in this case any legal evidence to support the inference of the Tribunal that the partition in question was not genuine and meant to be acted upon?" " The partition in question " which was set up was one dated October 16, 1944. The case was stated but the reference was decided against the appellant. Against that order the appellant has come to this court on a certificate of the High Court. In our opinion no question of law arises in this appeal. It was held by the Tribunal, on the material before it, that the partition which was evidenced by the deed was not genuine and the partition was not acted upon. In our opinion, the High Court, on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition was effected in I944 and it was genuine ? " It is against this judgment and order that the Commissioner has come in appeal to this court. Considering the additional facts which were placed before the Tribunal and on which it had given a finding in favour of the respondent, Mathuradas, the High Court held that there was, material in favour of the partition set up. It was argued before us that it was really the same partition and there was nothing fresh to support the genuineness of the partition and that the partition which had been held not to be genuine cannot now be held ratified. But the partition set up in this case was of December 30, 1944, whereas the partition set up in the earlier case was of October 16, 1944. As the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
