Partition of HUF property not proved; affidavits alone were insufficient, and Section 6 did not cause automatic disruption.

For income-tax purposes, a claim that family property had been partitioned, either by agreement or by operation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was rejected because the assessee did not produce objective material to prove an actual partition by agreement and relied only on self-serving affidavits. The later judicial understanding of Section 6 was treated as not supporting automatic disruption of the HUF merely on the death of the karta. The property therefore continued to be treated as belonging to the HUF and could not be excluded from assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's claim of partition of the family property, either by agreement or by operation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, could be accepted so as to exclude the property from assessment.

Analysis: The assessee failed to furnish the material called for to substantiate an actual partition by agreement. The affidavits of coparceners were treated as self-serving and were unsupported by objective evidence. On the statutory plea, the legal effect of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as explained by the later judicial exposition, did not support the proposition that the HUF stood automatically disrupted on the death of the karta. The property, therefore, could not be treated as having ceased to belong to the assessee HUF on that basis.

Conclusion: The claim of partition was not established and the assessee was not entitled to exclude the property from assessment.

---