- (1.) THE Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this Court : "Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing to adopt the status as that HUF -
(2.) THE present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1975 -76, 1981 -82 and 1982 -83.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows : The respondent -assessee filed returns of income in the status of HUF. The assessing authority, however, took the status of the respondent -assessee as that of an AOP and since the returns were filed in the status of HUF, the assessments were framed in the status of HUF on protective basis. It appears that there was a HUF in the name and style of Shiam Lal, consisting of Shyamlal, Surendra Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and other as coparceners and Smt. Vidya Devi and others and reallocated amongst various groups. This claim of partial partition was rejected by the ITO. However, the AAC has accepted the claim of partial partition which order has been upheld by the Tribunal. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. It has been stated by the learned standing counsel that the partial partition has been accepted by this Court. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was justified in upholding the status of the respondent -assessee.;