C.S.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has at the instance of the assessee referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim for partial partition of the assessee under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act could be allowed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "
(2.) SHRI Shyam Sunder, his wife, 'Gayatri Devi, and four minor sons, one of them being Daya Shanlcer, constituted a HUF. This family carried on business in iron and steel and was being assessed in the status of a HUF. In the year 1969-70, a claim was made before the ITO that a partial partition of the business had taken place between Shyam Sunder and three minor sons and Smt. Gayatri Devi and Daya Shanker with the result that the capital of the HUF firm was divided in accordance with the agreement dated 30th September, 1968. The ITO on the view that the deed did not set out the share of the other coparceners and was only between SHRI Shyam Sunder and his wife, declined to accept the partition. On an appeal being filed, the appellate authority took the view that although the karta of a HUF had a right to effect a partition, the right can be exercised only in case it is advantageous to the minor coparceners. In the present case, he found that there was no necessity for making the partition and neither was it proved that it was made in the interest of the minors. On these facts, he dismissed the appeal. The assessee then took up the matter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, but the appeal filed by it failed. Subsequent to the agreement of 30th September, 1968, a partnership deed was drawn up on the 4th of October, 1968, which purported to be between Shri Shyam Sunder as karta of the HUF consisting of himself and his four minor sons including Daya Shankar on the one hand and his wife, Smt. Gayatri Devi, on the other. Shri Shyam Sunder as karta of the HUF had 65 per cent. share in the profits and losses and Smt. Gayatri Devi, the remining share.
(3.) THE firm applied for registration but that too was declined on the ground that the partition effected in the HUF was not genuine and the business continued to be that of the HUF. Both the AAC and the Tribunal have upheld this order also. Addressing ourselves to the first question, the principle that the father of a joint Hindu family has power to divide joint property at any moment is well established, and we think it unnecessary to refer to the host of decisions which firmly establish this proposition. In such a partition, the father has to give his sons equal shares with himself. Even if unequal shares are allotted, the partition still holds good in case it is acquiesced by the sons or not repudiated by the minor sons on attaining majority. A partition may be partial as to the property and also as to the persons separating. In a case, where it is a partial partition as to the property, the members of the HUF continue as a joint family as respects the undivided properties. We have alluded to these general propositions for they will become handy for deciding the dispute that has arisen. Before coming to grasp with the controversy it is necessary to state a further proposition which is equally well established. No particular method is required to effect a partition, and all that is necessary is that there should be a definite unequivocal indication of the intention of a member of a joint family to effect partition (see Ragavamma v. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136).;