JUDGMENT This is an Income Tax Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In which following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the partial partition of the assessee-HUF on 7-2-1976 was entitled to be recognised under section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
Whether (if the answer to the above question be in the negative) the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 7,878 was interest paid to the minor children on the capital received by them on partial partition as also to Smt. Veena Singh on her 'Stridhan' and on the amount which she received on partition, was not includible in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year in question ?"
2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee made a claim for partial partition on 17-3-1976 claiming that partial partition has been effected in the family on 7-2-1976 as per memorandum dated 15-2-1976. The details are given in the statement of the case. The Income Tax Officer refused to recognise the partial partition and his order was upheld by Appellate Assistant Commissioner but in further appeal the Tribunal upheld the claim of partial partition. The Tribunal has held that the partial partition was genuine and it had the consent of all the members and it was fair to the minor and it is neither unequal nor against the interest of the minor. The facts of the case are covered by the decision in Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. CIT (1983) 141 ITR 5581 (SC). Following the said decision the first question referred to us is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee and against the department. The second question does not survive as it is consequential. The reference is answered accordingly.
2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee made a claim for partial partition on 17-3-1976 claiming that partial partition has been effected in the family on 7-2-1976 as per memorandum dated 15-2-1976. The details are given in the statement of the case. The Income Tax Officer refused to recognise the partial partition and his order was upheld by Appellate Assistant Commissioner but in further appeal the Tribunal upheld the claim of partial partition. The Tribunal has held that the partial partition was genuine and it had the consent of all the members and it was fair to the minor and it is neither unequal nor against the interest of the minor. The facts of the case are covered by the decision in Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. CIT (1983) 141 ITR 5581 (SC). Following the said decision the first question referred to us is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee and against the department. The second question does not survive as it is consequential. The reference is answered accordingly.