TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (10) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nil return. The Wealth-tax Officer had not considered the revised returns but the AAC directed him to do so and reframe the assessments after examining the assessee's claim of partition. The WTO did so but rejected the assessee's claim for partition and included the value of that property in the assessee's wealth. 2. The property in question is fully rented out chawls. It was owned by the HUF of one Kunverji Sawaji, the father of the karta of the present HUF Lakhaji Sawaji and his brother Dhanaji Kunwarji. The claim to the partition was that there was a verbal agreement for that partition in 1968 and it was put into writing by declaration dated 4-4-1969. The partition could not be effected by metes and bounds because of the nature of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Lakhaji Kunverji and Dhanji Kunverji died in 1971 and 1947 respectively. According to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, this property could only be treated as belonging to the respective HUFs of Shri Mohanbhai, son of Lakhaji Kunverji, Revchandbhai son of Lakhaji Kunverji and Jawarbhai, son of Dhanaji Kunwarji. The affidavit is only confirming the legal position regarding the ownership and the survivorship in respect of this property. It is immaterial whether this partition was actually done or not because in absence of such a partition also, this property cannot be said to be owned by anybody else except the HUF status of the abovenamed three HUFs. The WTO is, therefore, directed not to assess the aggregate value of this property i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for the assessee to prove that partition had in fact taken place for which there was hardly any evidence available. On the other hand, so far as the factual aspect was concerned, the assessee's advocate relied on the aforesaid affidavit and submitted that the affidavit showed that partition had already taken place among the coparceners of the HUF before us. He then made certain legal submissions. He submitted that on the death of Lakhaji Kunverji the 1/2 share of Lakhaji Kunverji in the HUF of Kunverji Sawaji went out. But we are here dealing with the HUF of Lakhaji Kunverji. Therefore, that is not relevant. According to him, in the present case, partition had taken place in the HUF of Lakhaji Kunverji the assessee before us because Lakha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not been able to support his case for partition. The details asked for by the Wealth-tax Officer are extremely relevant but the assessee has failed to produce them. All that the assessee has got are affidavits of the coparceners which as called by the D.R. are merely self-serving documents. There is no objective data to prove the partition as per agreement as claimed by the assessee. 7. We are therefore, now left with the question of partition effected by reason of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The relevant observations in the Supreme Court judgment in Gurupad's case have been duly explained by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh [1987] 163 ITR 31 as follows :-- "We have ....