G.P. Singh, C.J.

1. This is a case stated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, referring for our answer the following questions of law :

" 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in accepting that only half the property will be deemed to have passed on the death of Chhotelal?

2. Whether the Tribunal has correctly interpreted Section 39(1) of the E.D. Act and held that on the death of a sole coparcener it must be deemed that there was a partition of a HUF and that the wife was entitled to have a share equal to that of her son ?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 10 of the E.D Act is not applicable to the facts of the case and whether it was justified in deleting the amount of Rs 88,000 ? "

2. The reference arises in respect of the principal value of the estate left by one Chhotelal Nanhelal who died on March 2, 1967. The accountable person. Rani Bahu, is the widow of the deceased. The facts relevant to questions Nos. 1 and 2 are that the deceased, his wife. Rani Bahu, and his four sons constituted a joint Hindu family. One of the sons died in 1944 leaving a gra