Partition notice under income tax law need not defeat the order where representation was effective and appeal remained available.

Separate notice under section 171(2) was not treated as fatal where a family member had effectively represented the concerned branch in the partition enquiry and no substantive conflict of interest was shown. The Court also held that writ interference was unwarranted because the same issue could be examined in the pending statutory appeal, in which the petitioners had already appeared. The writ court therefore declined to interfere, left the appellate authority to decide the matter on merits, and preserved liberty for the petitioners to seek further recourse if the appeal was found not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order recognising partition of the Hindu undivided family was vitiated for want of notice to all members under section 171(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the writ court should interfere when an appeal on the same issue was already pending before the appellate authority.

Analysis: The petitioners failed to establish any conflict of interest between themselves and their father, who had throughout represented the opposing branch in the partition dispute and had actively participated in the enquiry. In these circumstances, the Court held that the statutory requirement of notice to the members of the family was not infringed in substance. The Court also noted that the question could be effectively examined in the pending statutory appeal, where the petitioners had already appeared, and therefore refrained from exercising writ jurisdiction. The Court left the appellate authority to consider the matter on merits and reserved liberty to the petitioners to return if the appeal was found not maintainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the partition order was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and directed the pending statutory appeal to be decided afresh on notice to the petitioners, while upholding the impugned order for the purpose of this proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a family member has effectively represented the interest of the branch concerned and the grievance can be fully examined in the pending statutory appeal, absence of separate notice under section 171(2) does not by itself warrant writ interference.

---