High Court Of Allahabad
CIT vs. Amrit Lal
Section 171
Asst. Year 1984-85 & 1985-86
R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 81 of 1992
14th February, 2005
Counsel Appeared :
A.N. Mahajan, for the Revenue : P.K. Jain, for the Assessee
ORDER
By the court :
The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for opinion to this Court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law to hold that the share income of Rs. 8,845 received from M/s Amrit Lal Subhas Chand is not includible in the assessee’s income liable to tax although the issue with regard to the correct status to be adopted in the cases of sub-groups formed on partial partition of bigger HUFs is sub judice before the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad ?”
2. Briefly stated the facts involved in the present case are as under : The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1984-85. A bigger HUF in the name of Kewal Krishna existed comprising of father and three sons as coparceners. A partial partition of the capital of Rs. 10,000 was made to effect on 31st March, 1975. On the basis of this partial partition, Kewal Krishna, Yogesh Chander formed one group and Rakesh Goel, Rajesh Goel formed another group. Each of these groups has a capital of Rs. 5,000 each (in) consequence to the partition. It was followed by a second partial partition of an immovable property on 31st of October, 1976. As per this partition two groups were again formed, one comprising of Kewal Krishna, Rajesh Kumar and another Yogesh Chander and Rajesh Kumar. The partial partition claims were accepted by the ITO but he treated the groups as tenants in common and 50 per cent of the income arising from the assets partition were included in the hands of the income of the assessee rejecting the claim of the income representing that of this smaller HUF. The Tribunal has upheld the claim of the partial partition accepted by the Dy. CIT(A).
3. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Shri P.K. Jain has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. We find that this Court in the case of CIT vs. Shrawan Kumar Swarup & Sons (1998) 147 CTR (All) 305 : (1998) 232 ITR 123 (All) has in similar circumstances upheld the claim of partial partition between various groups.
4. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 295 ITR 505]
