Malik, C.J. - (1.) This is a reference under Section 66 (l), Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred to us runs as follows: " Whether in the circumstances of this case, the definition of shares as made by the preliminary decree of the partition amounted to a partition in 'definite portions' within the meaning of those words as used in S. 25-A?"
(2.) The assessee was assessed as a Hindu undivided family up to the assessment year 1938-39. In the year 1939-10 the assessee-applicant B. Jyoti Bhushan Gupta, claimed that as there had been a family partition in definite portions the joint Hindu family had ceased to to exist and the assessment should be made on the assessee as an individual.
(3.) One B. Lakshmi Prasad had three sons viz. Raja Moti Chand, B. Gokul Chand and B. Mangala Prasad. The family continued to remain joint with Raja Moti Chand as Karta of the family. Raja Moti Chand died on 18th of March 1934, leaving behind no issue. On 2nd of June, 1936 B. Jyoti Bhnshan Gupta, son of B. Mangala Prasad, Mangla Prasad being dead, filed Suit No. 49 of 1936 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Banaras on the allegation that the joint family status having been broken upon 28th September 1931 he was not liable, after the date of partition for the transactions entered into by B. Gokul Chand and his sons and was entitled to claim half share in the property. In the written statement on behalf of B. Gokul Chand, the fact that B. Jyoti Bhushan Gupta was entitled to half share in the property was admitted. It was, however, alleged that the joint family status had continued up to 15th April 1936. On 26th March, 1941, the learned Additional Civil Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition and he held in the plaintiff's favour that the status of the joint family was broken up on 28th September 1934.;