Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tirlok Singh. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
head note: income tax huf or individual income--partial partition--genuineness of partial partition not in dispute. ratio & held: appellate assistant commissioner was justified in directing that the income of the assessee was liable to be reduced as in earlier reference the partial partition was held by the court as genuine. case law analysis: cit v. wazir singh (1989) 179 itr 601 (p&h) followed application: not to current assessment years a. y.: 1974-75 dt. ord.: 1-10-1996 income tax act 1961 s.4 - orderg. s. singhvi, j. :by an order dt. 30th september, 1976, the ito, a-ward, sirsa, finalised the assessment proceedings qua the non-petitioner for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and assessed the liability of the non-petitioner to the tune of rs. 60,990. appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the aac, rohtak in view of the appellate authoritys own order dt. 25th september, 1978 whereby it had held that partial partition effected by the parties was genuine and the income of the assessee was liable to be reduced by rs. 33,831, dissatisfied by the order of the appellate authority, the revenue went in appeal before the tribunal, chandigarh bench. that appeal was dismissed on 11th december, 1980.thereafter, the revenue filed a petition under s. 256(1) of the it act, 1961 which resulted into the reference of following question of law to this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the aac deleting addition of rs. 22,631 ?'2. the question relating to the validity of the partial partition was also referred to this court. vide its order dt. 5th april, 1989 in cit vs . wazir singh this court answered the reference in favour of the assessee by holding that in terms of the expln. to s. 171 of the act there can be partial partition merely as regards the persons constituting the huf.3. learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the recognition of the partial partition, the deletion made by the aac was perfectly legal. the learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to show as to how can the orders of the aac and the tribunal be treated as erroneous and how could we overlook the view taken by this court in cit vs. wazir singh (supra).in the premise aforementioned and the decision in cit vs. wazir singh (supra), we answer the question referred by the tribunal in favour of the assessee. the petition is disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

G. S. SINGHVI, J. :

By an order dt. 30th September, 1976, the ITO, A-ward, Sirsa, finalised the assessment proceedings qua the non-petitioner for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and assessed the liability of the non-petitioner to the tune of Rs. 60,990. Appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the AAC, Rohtak in view of the appellate authoritys own order dt. 25th September, 1978 whereby it had held that partial partition effected by the parties was genuine and the income of the assessee was liable to be reduced by Rs. 33,831, Dissatisfied by the order of the appellate authority, the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. That appeal was dismissed on 11th December, 1980.

Thereafter, the Revenue filed a petition under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 which resulted into the reference of following question of law to this Court :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the AAC deleting addition of Rs. 22,631 ?'

2. The question relating to the validity of the partial partition was also referred to this Court. Vide its order dt. 5th April, 1989 in CIT vs . Wazir Singh this Court answered the reference in favour of the assessee by holding that in terms of the Expln. to s. 171 of the Act there can be partial partition merely as regards the persons constituting the HUF.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the recognition of the partial partition, the deletion made by the AAC was perfectly legal. The learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to show as to how can the orders of the AAC and the Tribunal be treated as erroneous and how could we overlook the view taken by this Court in CIT vs. Wazir Singh (supra).

In the premise aforementioned and the decision in CIT vs. Wazir Singh (supra), we answer the question referred by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. The petition is disposed of accordingly.