1982 (3) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1977) In the connected case the question referred is " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,636 from the assessment of the assessee's HUF in view of the acceptance of the assessee's claim of partial partition made under section 171 ? " The matter related to the assessment year 1972-73. One Babu Lal Kedia had a son, Jiwan Ram and a daughter, Jiwani Devi. Jiwan Ram had three sons, Krishna Kumar, Vijai Kumar and Mani Lal. Till the assessment year 1945-46, M/s. Gangadhar Babu Lal was assessed in the status of an HUF which consisted of Babu Lal Kedia, his son, Jiwan Ram and the sons of Jiwan Ram. A partition took place in the HUF of Gangadhar Babu Lal between .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... king the partition though the same belonged to the HUF and the constitution of both the HUFs was the same and consequently it could not be held that there was a partial partition or a complete partition. The order of the ITO was confirmed by the AAC in appeal. The AAC took the view that there was no documentary evidence to show that Mani Lal Kedia had separated from the HUF and the property credited in his name continued to belong to his HUF. On appeal by the assessee the Tribunal found that Mani Lal Kedia separated from the HUF after taking a sum of Rs. 81,519 representing his share of capital in the entire business assets and the movables. This finding was recorded on the basis of the entries in the account books. As noted earlier, afte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... partition in the family. During the assessment proceedings of the assessee's HUF for the year 1972-73, the ITO added a sum of Rs. 15,636 in the income of the assessees, being the income earned by Mani Lal as partner from M/s. Vikas Agencies on the reasoning that he continued to be a member of the HUF and the claim for partial partition was not established. The Tribunal rightly deleted this amount on the finding that there was a genuine partition made under s. 171 of the Act and consequently the amount earned by Mani Lal Kedia as partner from M/s. Vikas Agencies could not be added to the income of the assessee's HUF. In the result our answers to the questions referred are in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Depar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X