Law:

Section:

Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu undivided family - Assessment after partition - Assessment year 1973-74 - Whether there could be a valid partial partition of HUF assets between a widow and her son who was sole coparcener -Held, yes Facts The HUF consisted of N, his mother, his wife and his minor children. A firm RS was started and N representing the HUF became a partner in the said firm with his share of 35 per cent. Later on, the capital of the HUF in firm RS was divided between N and his mother on 31-3-1973 and, consequently, separate accounts in their names were opened. A memorandum of partial partition was drawn up wherein the terms of the aforesaid partition were recorded. During the assessment year 1973-74, a claim for partial partition under section 171 was made by HUF. The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim on the ground that the mother had been wrongly described in the memorandum of partial partition as coparcener and that the widowed mother could not compel for partition and that the existence of at least two coparceners was essential for claiming partition. The AAC allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal restored the ITO's order. On reference: Held Partial partition of HUF assets in the partnership firm RS was carried out by N and since his mother was entitled to share the assets equally with him, she was also given equal share and memorandum of partition was drawn up. Under the circumstances, on a reading of section 171 there was no impediment in the way of the assessee to claim partial partition of HUF assets. It would hardly matter whether the mother was entitled to claim partition or not, and even if N was the sole coparcener, he could effect partition. The income-tax law and particularly section 171 did not envisage that if members of a HUF were mother and son, such a HUF was debarred in law in effecting complete or partial partition of an HUF assets. Accordingly, the partition effected by the widow and her son was valid. Cases referred to Vidyaben v. Jagdishchandra Nandshankar Bhatt AIR 1974 Guj. 23, Jai Parkash v. Ram Kali 1974 Revenue Law Reporter 327 andDalichand Tejraj v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 383 (Raj.). Balwant Singh…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492