1982 (3) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Income-tax Act ? " (I.T.R. No. 1123 of 1977) In the connected case the question referred is " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,636 from the assessment of the assessee's HUF in view of the acceptance of the assessee's claim of partial partition made under section 171 ? " The matter related to the assessment year 1972-73. One Babu Lal Kedia had a son, Jiwan Ram and a daughter, Jiwani Devi. Jiwan Ram had three sons, Krishna Kumar, Vijai Kumar and Mani Lal. Till the assessment year 1945-46, M/s. Gangadhar Babu Lal was assessed in the status of an HUF which consisted of Babu Lal Kedia, his son, Jiwan Ram and the sons of Jiwan Ram. A partition took p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ram (HUF) had not at all been included while making the partition though the same belonged to the HUF and the constitution of both the HUFs was the same and consequently it could not be held that there was a partial partition or a complete partition. The order of the ITO was confirmed by the AAC in appeal. The AAC took the view that there was no documentary evidence to show that Mani Lal Kedia had separated from the HUF and the property credited in his name continued to belong to his HUF. On appeal by the assessee the Tribunal found that Mani Lal Kedia separated from the HUF after taking a sum of Rs. 81,519 representing his share of capital in the entire business assets and the movables. This finding was recorded on the basis of the ent....