The legal principle established is that a valid partial partition of joint family property by the father, between himself and his sons, is not invalidated by unequal distribution amongst the co-sharers and the father's right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons.

Headnote:
Partition - IT Act, 1961 - Valid Partial Partition - The court held that a valid partial partition had been effected of the assessee-HUF on 30th June, 1976, in line with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Appurva Shanti Lal Shah v. CIT (1983) 141 ITR 558 (SC), which established that a partial partition of joint family property by the father, between himself and his sons, does not become invalid due to unequal distribution amongst the co-sharers and the father's right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons.
Fact of the Case:

The reference under Section 256 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 was made to determine the validity of a partial partition of the assessee-HUF on 30th June, 1976.
Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the assessee, citing the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Appurva Shanti Lal Shah v. CIT (1983) 141 ITR 558 (SC) to support the validity of the partial partition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that a valid partial partition had been effected of the assessee-HUF on 30th June, 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Appurva Shanti Lal Shah v. CIT (1983) 141 ITR 558 (SC) to establish the validity of the partial partition, emphasizing that unequal distribution amongst co-sharers and the father's right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons does not invalidate the partial partition.
Final Decision: The reference was decided in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 256 (1) of the IT Act, 1961. Following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court : "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that a valid partial partition had been effected of the assessee-HUF on 30th June, 1976 ?"

( 2 ) HEARD Sri Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee, and Sri Mahajan, learned counsel for revenue.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel at Bar are in agreement that the matter stands fully covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Appurva Shanti Lal Shah v. CIT (1983) 141 ITR 558 (SC), wherein it has been held that a partial partition of any joint family property by the father, between himself and his sons, does not become invalid on the ground that there has been no equal distribution amongst the co-sharers and the father was having a right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons.

( 4 ) IN view of the above, the reference is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(All) 1035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADB. S. Chauhan and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - AppellantVersusKAILASH KUMAR DIXIT (HUF) - RespondentsIT Ref. 82 Of 1983Decided On : 05/06/2003

The legal principle established is that a valid partial partition of joint family property by the father, between himself and his sons, is not invalidated by unequal distribution amongst the co-sharers and the father's right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. S. Chauhan and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Appellant
Versus
KAILASH KUMAR DIXIT (HUF) - Respondents
IT Ref. 82 Of 1983
Decided On : 05/06/2003