Partial partition of HUF assets and settled precedent defeated any referable question of law in reference proceedings.

A reference application failed because the dispute over deletion of an addition linked to income from assets said to fall within a partial partition of an HUF was already concluded by binding Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal treated the partial partition claim as allowable, accepted that the karta could validly effect such a partition, and held that no referable question of law survived in reference proceedings once the issue had become academic on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any referable question of law arose from the deletion of the addition made in respect of the income from assets allegedly covered by a partial partition of the Hindu undivided family. (ii) Whether a partial partition of HUF assets could be validly effected by the karta and the resulting claim could be accepted.

Issue (i): Whether any referable question of law arose from the deletion of the addition made in respect of the income from assets allegedly covered by a partial partition of the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The claim of partial partition had already been accepted by the appellate authority and sustained by the Tribunal, with the consequential deletion of the addition. The only issue sought to be referred had already been settled by the Supreme Court, and therefore did not survive as a live question requiring a reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose.

Issue (ii): Whether a partial partition of HUF assets could be validly effected by the karta and the resulting claim could be accepted.

Analysis: The legal position on the power of the karta to effect a partial partition stood settled by the Supreme Court. In view of that binding position, the Tribunal treated the controversy as no longer open for reconsideration in reference proceedings.

Conclusion: The partial partition claim was treated as allowable and the resulting addition was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed because the controversy was already concluded by binding precedent, leaving no question of law fit for reference.

Ratio Decidendi: A question already settled by binding precedent and rendered academic on the facts does not give rise to a referable question of law under the reference jurisdiction.

---