TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (8) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. According to that memorandum, since all the properties were partitioned and the members of the said joint family had severed in status, the house property was to be enjoyed by them as tenant-in-common with equal shares as the house was not capable of physical division by metes and bounds. An application was also made to the ITO for recording this partition u/s 171 of the Act. The ITO, however, by an order dt. 3rd March, 1976 held that there was only a partial partition and accepted such partial partition. Subsequently, it appears that Jaya Prakash released his rights in favour of the two other brothers, V. Nadhamuni and V. Ramesh Babu who returned their half share of the income from house property as part of the total income of their res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 586 (Mad). 4. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion, that the assessees are entitled to succeed. The undisputed facts are that there was a memorandum dt. 1st April, 1972 regarding a total partition of all the assets of the joint family. Since the property was not capable of division by metes and bounds it was agreed that it should be held by the undivided members as tenants-in-common. However, In the order passed u/s 171 dt. 3rd March, 1976 only a partial partition of the business assets was recorded. Therefore, there as no recognition by the ITO of either the partition of the house property or a disruption of the family as such. Under s. 171, an HUF hitherto assessed as undivided shall be deemed to continue to ....