- (1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petition No. 6765 of 1992.
(2.) This is a case of partial partition of a Hindu joint family. The claim of the assessee was that the joint family had effected partial partition in respect of certain properties of the family. The claim was rejected by the tribunal but was upheld by the High court. The properties in question, as set out in the judgment of the tribunal are:
(3.) The case of the assessee is that they have not divided these joint properties by metes and bounds but it is permissible in law in case of partial partition not to divide these properties invested in business in case of continuing business. The members of a Hindu undivided family may continue doing business and at the same time notionally divide the properties among the various constituents of the family. As a proposition f law, the contention may be correct but turning to the facts of the case, it is found that each of the nine items of properties is capable of physical partition. This is not a case where Hindu undivided family itself wascarrying on its business before partial partition with these assets. The Hindu undivided family had investments in various businesses. Investments in a a cooperative society to the tune of Rs. 54,750. 00 or monies deposited with bankers to the tune of Rs 1,20,122.68 are capable of being divided among the joint family members. There are also treasury savings deposit of rs 11,000. 00 and annuity deposit of Rs 8,250. 00. There is no reason why the parties could not divide these assets by metes and bounds.;