THANIKKACHALAM, J.

At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question both in the IT assessment as well as in the GT assessment relating to the asst. yr. 1980-81, in the case of both the assessees under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid reunion of Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his son, Rajkumar, to constitute a new HUF?"

2. There was originally a joint family consisting of two coparceners, Shri Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his only son, Shri V. Rajkumar. On 1st April, 1966, there was a partial partition of some of the movable properties of the family. On 7th Feb., 1967, there was a second partial partition of the other movable properties. On 14th April, 1971, there was a total and complete partition of the immovable properties. This partition was accepted by the ITO by an order passed under s. 171 of the IT Act, 1961, on 9th March, 1973. On 1st Oct., 1979, Vaiyapuri Chettiar and V. Rajkumar executed an instrument called "deed of declaration of reunion" on a stamp paper of Rs. 50. This document recited the previous partitions in the family and the desire and