9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of partial partition under Hindu law and Income Tax Act. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the justification of a partial partition within an HUF. The assessee claimed a partial partition by a registered deed, forming a smaller HUF with specific assets. The dispute arose as the ITO found the arrangement to create a dual character for the minor members and questioned the karta's representation of both the original and smaller HUF. The AAC supported the partial partition, emphasizing the legality of one person holding dual capacities. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, citing the permissibility of partial partitions under section 171 of the IT Act, 1961. The core issue revolved around the permissibility of a partial partition under Hindu law and the Income Tax Act. The definition of partial partition under section 171 includes partitions concerning persons or properties within an HUF. The revenue contended that a partial partition cannot separate a part of the joint family while retaining joint family status for the rest of the estate. They cited a Madras High Court case where an unequal partition was not recognized due to lack of physical division. However, under the current IT Act, partial partitions are recognized under section 171, even if not complete. The counsel for the assessee argued that a father in a joint family has the power to effect a partition without the consent of sons, as part of patria potestas. Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law supported this notion, stating that a father can divide family property to effect separation among sons. The partition can be partial, leaving some assets as joint family property. The court acknowledged that a coparcener's unequivocal intention to partition specific assets can lead to a valid partial partition, even without the consent of minor coparceners. In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the partial partition in question, aligning with section 171 of the IT Act, 1961. The judgment emphasized the father's authority under patria potestas to effect a partial partition within an HUF, even without explicit consent from minor coparceners.
|
