The members of the petitioner-Hindu undivided family are Satish Chandra Modi, his wife, Tarulata, and their two minor sons, Soham and Sourabh. Satish has been an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, from the assessment year 1972. It was decided to effect a partial partition of only one asset of the major Hindu undivided family, of a sum of Rs. 30,000 (rupees thirty thousand only) and such partial partition was duly carried out and completed on October 1978. It is not the assessee that the minor sons, Shri Soham and Shri Sourabh, took Rs. 10,000 each out of the Hindu undivided family funds and there was a partial partition in respect of these amounts between the main Hindu undivided family on the one hand and the minor sons, Shri Soham and Shri Sourabh, separately, on the other hand. The aforesaid Hindu undivided family and the assets and properties remain and shall remain Joint, for the benefit and on behalf of all the members thereof.
It is claimed that partial partition was effected in 1978, partitioning another sum of Rs. 30,000 belonging to the petitioner-Hindu undivided family and allotting a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the minor, Sourabh, and the remaining Rs. 20,000 to the other three members of the Hindu undivided family, Satish Chandra Modi, Tarulata and Soham. The income-tax assessment gave notice to the petitioner 1982, calling for objections as to why its claim for partial partition under section 171 should not be refused. Minor Hindu undivided family is not one of the members of the Hindu undivided family which is subjected to partition, he claimed of partial partition. The claim of Hindu undivided family made by the assessee is not acceptable is rejected.
The Income-tax Officer was rejecting this claim and in clubbing the income of the allegedly smaller Hindu undivided families in the income of the main Hindu undivided family. The case made out by the assessee of multiple Hindu undivided families and which is rejected by the Income-tax Officer.
The Court observed that partial partitions set up on behalf of Hindu undivided family are not vitiated by any error warranting interference by this court in exercise of the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.
It is claimed that partial partition was effected in 1978, partitioning another sum of Rs. 30,000 belonging to the petitioner-Hindu undivided family and allotting a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the minor, Sourabh, and the remaining Rs. 20,000 to the other three members of the Hindu undivided family, Satish Chandra Modi, Tarulata and Soham. The income-tax assessment gave notice to the petitioner 1982, calling for objections as to why its claim for partial partition under section 171 should not be refused. Minor Hindu undivided family is not one of the members of the Hindu undivided family which is subjected to partition, he claimed of partial partition. The claim of Hindu undivided family made by the assessee is not acceptable is rejected.
The Income-tax Officer was rejecting this claim and in clubbing the income of the allegedly smaller Hindu undivided families in the income of the main Hindu undivided family. The case made out by the assessee of multiple Hindu undivided families and which is rejected by the Income-tax Officer.
The Court observed that partial partitions set up on behalf of Hindu undivided family are not vitiated by any error warranting interference by this court in exercise of the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.