Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the Knowing two questions of law under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that on the death of Shri Prem Sundar a deemed partition had taken place which is recognized for all purposes and the property which was hitherto the HUF property no longer remains the property of HUF?" (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that Section 171(9) has no applicability to the present case.?
(2.) The dispute relates to the assessment year 1982-83 and 1983-84.
(3.) Briefly, stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :There was a Hindu undivided family comprising of Sri Prem Sundar as Karta, his wife Smt. Meera Prem Sundar and his minor son Master Sunil Prem Sundar. Sri Prem Sundar expired on 23rd June, 1978. The assessee claimed that on account of death of Karta, her right in HUF property was defined and as per provisions of Section 6 read with Explanation 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, it was not necessary for her to claim any partition in the property of the HUF as per Section 171(9) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed to be governed by the Mitakshara Coparcenary Law. The claim of the assessee was ultimately accepted by the Tribunal. The controversy involved according to the assessee in the present reference is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Gurupad Khandappa Megdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Megdum and Ors. (1981) 129 I.T.R.-440.;