Partition by sole coparcener invalid under Hindu law; deed could not be recognised for section 171 tax purposes.

A partition under Hindu law requires more than one coparcener; a sole coparcener cannot effect a partition with himself. Where a deed purports to grant shares to female family members in such circumstances, it is not a valid partition but only a settlement of property in lieu of maintenance rights. On that basis, the alleged partition could not be recognised under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The alternative characterisation of the document as a family arrangement or gift was not examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether a partition deed between a sole coparcener and the female members of the family could be recognised as a valid partition for the purposes of section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: A partition under Hindu law requires more than one coparcener. A sole coparcener cannot divide property with himself, and any grant of shares to other family members in such a situation is not a partition but only a settlement of property in lieu of maintenance rights. Since the reference arose from recognition of partition under section 171, the alternative characterisation of the document as a family arrangement or gift was not examined.

Conclusion: The alleged partition was not valid in law and could not be recognised under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The answer was therefore against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---