Unequal distribution and the father's right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons do not invalidate a partial partition of joint family property.

Headnote:
Partition - IT Act, 1961 - Valid Partial Partition - Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment
Fact of the Case:

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

The court found that the matter was fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appurva Shanti Lal Shah v. CIT (1983) 141 ITR 558 (SC), which held 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.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that a valid partial partition had been effected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment to decide in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that unequal distribution and the father's consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons did 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) 1029

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADB.S. Chauhan and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ. Commissioner of Income Tax VersusKailash Kumar Dixit (HUF) IT Ref. 82 of 1983Decided On : 06 May 2003 IT Ref. 82 Of 1983

Unequal distribution and the father's right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons do not invalidate a partial partition of joint family property.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.S. Chauhan and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax
Versus
Kailash Kumar Dixit (HUF)
IT Ref. 82 of 1983
Decided On : 06 May 2003
IT Ref. 82 Of 1983