Mitakshara coparcenary devolution requires notional partition before death and reassessment under the Hindu Succession Act.

On the death of a Mitakshara coparcener, his interest in the coparcenary must be ascertained by a notional partition immediately before death and then devolved under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Applying sections 6, 8, 9, 10 and 19, the deceased's share had to be worked out between the deceased and the surviving son, while the mother was not treated as a coparcener for the partition computation. The income from the HUF businesses and agricultural assets therefore could not be assessed on the basis adopted by the Income-tax Officer, and the assessment had to be reworked on the correct succession and apportionment basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment of income from the HUF businesses and agricultural assets was in law in the light of the death of the karta and the claimed partition, and whether the income had to be assessed on the basis of devolution under the Hindu Succession Act rather than on the footing adopted by the Income-tax Officer.

Analysis: On the death of the karta, the Court applied section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the proviso thereto, together with sections 8, 9 and 10, to hold that the deceased's interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary had to be worked out on the basis of a notional partition immediately before death. The notional partition was to be assumed between the deceased and the son, and not with the mother, who was not a coparcener. The surviving son's share therefore had to be determined on that footing, and the income from the businesses and agricultural assets left by the deceased could not be assessed merely by taking the entire oil business in the hands of the smaller HUF. Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 also indicated that the relevant parties took as tenants-in-common and not by survivorship, requiring a proper reworking of the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment as made was incorrect, and the matter had to be re-done in accordance with the rules of devolution under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The assessee obtained only partial relief.

Final Conclusion: The existing assessment was set aside and a fresh assessment was directed on the correct basis of succession and apportionment of the deceased's HUF assets.

Ratio Decidendi: On the death of a Mitakshara coparcener, his interest in the coparcenary is to be determined by notional partition and then devolved in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, requiring reassessment on the correct share of the surviving members.

---