1977 (4) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Recognition of partial partition in a Hindu undivided family.
2. Authority of karta to effect partition in a family with only one male coparcener.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petition was filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking direction to the Tribunal to state a case regarding the recognition of a partial partition in a Hindu undivided family. The family consisted of the karta, his wife, and two minor daughters. The karta attempted a partial partition by debiting the family account and crediting the daughters' accounts with Rs. 10,000 each. A declaration was made stating the daughters' entitlement to the amount for education, maintenance, and marriage expenses. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal all rejected the claim of partial partition. The Tribunal emphasized that a coparcener's right to claim a share is not available to female members in the absence of a male coparcener. As the wife was not allotted any property, the Tribunal concluded that the arrangement did not constitute a valid partition.

2. The court analyzed the possibility of partition in a family with only one male coparcener, the karta. It was noted that under Hindu Law, every coparcener is entitled to a share upon partition. As there was no coparcener apart from the karta in this family, the court concluded that a partition was not feasible. The court highlighted that while provisions exist for maintenance or expenses of female family members, the arrangement made by the karta did not specify such allocations. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Income-tax Act cannot grant a right to partition beyond what personal law allows. Section 171(2) was discussed, clarifying that it pertains to assessing property ownership post-partition and does not confer new partition rights. The court affirmed that without the possibility of partition due to the family structure, there was no basis for making provisions for female members. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating the questions raised did not warrant referral to the Tribunal, and ordered costs to be paid.