9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of partial partition of Hindu undivided family assets between a widowed mother and her son under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved a Hindu undivided family with Ram Chander Paliwal as the karta, who passed away in 1963, leaving behind his wife, Ram Narain, and their minor sons and daughter. Ram Narain continued as the karta, and a partnership firm was formed in 1965 with him as a partner. The family claimed partial partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was initially denied by the Income-tax Officer citing incorrect description of Ram Piari as a coparcener and the belief that a widowed mother could not compel for a partition. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the partition, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision, stating that Ram Piari could not be a coparcener and relied on precedents to deny the partition claim. The High Court analyzed the case and emphasized that the dispute was regarding the validity of partial partition of Hindu undivided family assets under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, not the existence of the Hindu undivided family itself. It was established that a Hindu undivided family can be a partner in a firm, and since the family continued to be assessed as such till 1973, a partial partition was permissible. The court held that even if Ram Narain was the sole male coparcener, he could effect the partition, and the law did not prevent a Hindu undivided family comprising a mother and her son from partitioning their assets. The court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in denying the valid partial partition between the widowed mother and her son, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Department. In summary, the High Court determined that under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, a valid partial partition of Hindu undivided family assets between a widowed mother and her son was permissible, irrespective of the specific composition of the family members. The court's decision highlighted the distinction between the assessment of the family as a Hindu undivided family for tax purposes and the ability to partition their assets, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and allowing the partial partition claim.
|
