( 1 ) A very vital question which was res integra till the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Consisting of A. P. Sen C. J. (as he then was) and J. S. Verma J. rendered its decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. SETH GOPALDAS (H. U. F.) ON 14/04/1978 (116 ITR 577) has given rise to the present reference at the instance of the assessee. The question is as to whether a Hindu father by virtue of his overriding powers as patria protestas recognised by traditional Hindu Law can effect a partial partition (in the sense of partition in respect of only some of the assets as contradistinguished from all the assets) at his own volition in respect of a Hindu Undivided Family (H. U. F.) consisting only of himself and his minor sons. By the aforesaid decision which is the only decision on the point the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken the view that a Hindu father does not have any such power to effect a partial partition in the sense of division of only a part of the HUF assets whilst maintaining or continuing the status of HUF in respect of the undivided assets. The view is taken that such a partial partition is not permissible in law and that it cannot be regarded as a valid partial partition by the Income-Tax Officer in exercise of his power under sec. 171 (3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Sec. 171 of the Act in so far as is material reads as under:"171 A Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to continue to be a Hindu undivided family except where and in so far as a finding of partition has been given under this section in respect of the Hindu Undivided Family. (2) Where at the time of making an assessment under sec. 143 or sec. 144 it is claimed by or on behalf of any member of a Hindu Family assessed as undivided- that a partition whether total or partial has taken place among the members of such family the Income-tax Officer shall make an inquiry there into after giving notice of the inquiry to all the members of the family. (3) On the completion of the inquiry the Income-tax Officer shall record a finding as to whether there has been a total or partial partition of the joint family property and if there has been such a partition the date on which it has taken place. (4) Where a finding of total or partial partition has been recorded by the Income-tax Officer under this section and the partition took place during the previous year (a) the total income of the joint family in respect of the period up to the date of partition shall be assessed as if no partition had taken place; and (b) each member or group of members shall in addition to any tax for which he or it may be separately liable and notwithstanding anything contained in clause (2) of sec. 10 be jointly and severally liable for the tax on the income so assessed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation: In this section (a) Partition means (i) Where the property admits of a physical division of the property but a physical division of the income without a physical division of the property producing the income shall not be deemed to be a partition; or (ii) Where the property does not admit of a physical division then such division as the property admits of but a mere severance of status shall not be deemed to be a partition; (b) partial partition means a partition which is partial as regards the persons constituting the Hindu undivided family or the properties belonging to the Hindu undivided family or both.

( 2 ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has followed the aforesaid decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and has decided the matter against the assessee. There upon as many as six questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. We will advert to the questions as framed by the Tribunal at a later stage. Suffice it to say for the purpose of the present discussion that the central