9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (12) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Hindu undivided families. On or about the 2nd of February, 1961, Kundanlal died. On February 3, 1961, the firm was reconstituted. Partners of the reconstituted firm were Rameshwar Lal as the karta of his Hindu undivided family, Kundanlal's widow, Smt. Bharbati Devi, and her adopted son Prem Chand. Rameshwvar Lal's minor son, Ghanshyam, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. A fresh partnership deed was drawn up on February 22, 1961. In that partnership deed it was mentioned that out of the capital of the Hindu undivided family of Rameshwar Lal, partner, a sum of Rs. 60,000 had been divided equally between Rameshwar Lal, Saraswati Devi and Ghanshyam. At the time of assessment for 1962-63, the Hindu undivided family of Rameshwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no partial partition as claimed by the assessee ? (2) Whether the share of profit paid to Ghanshyam and the interest paid to Rameshwar Lal and Saraswati Devi by the firm M/s. Brij Mohan Lal Rameshwar Lal was rightly included in the income of the assessee, Hindu undivided family ?" Mr. Brijlal Gupta appearing for the department urged that question No. 1 ought to be answered against the assessee for two reasons. Firstly, there was no genuine partition as claimed by the assessee. Secondly, a division of a part of an asset is not permissible in law. As regards the suggestion that the partial partition was not gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. Consequently, the sole question for our consideration is whether the attempted partial partition was effective or not. Towards the end of the main judgment dated April 21, 1964, the Tribunal observed: "As in this case there was no complete division of the joint family business or share of the joint family firm in the said business, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not right in holding that there was a partial partition with effect from February 4, 1961, or otherwise." The basis of the decision of the Tribunal is that if a Hindu undivided family owns a certain asset, that unit of asset has to be divided as a whole. This proposition of law is not quite accurate. Whether a particular asset is capable of partial division or not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
