SATISH CHANDRA MODI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these four writ petitions is a Hindu undivided family (HUF) and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus, etc., directing the respondents, i.e., the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka (Central), Bangalore, and the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Hyderabad, to accept the partial partitions effected by its karta, Satish Chandra Modi, for the four assessment years 1979-80 (Writ Petition No. 18153 of 1987), 1981-82 (Writ Petition No. 8523 of 1988), 1984-85 (Writ Petition No. 8903 of 1988) and 1985-86 (Writ Petition No. 8913 of 1988), etc.

(2.) The members of the petitioner-Hindu undivided family are Satish Chandra Modi, his wife, Tarulata, and their two minor sons, Soham and Sourabh. The petitioner has been an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short), from the assessment year 1971-72. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that a partial partition was effected on 19/01/1976, in respect of a sum of Rs. 30,000 belonging to the petitioner-Hindu undivided family whereunder a sum of Rs. 10,000 was given to the minor, Soham, and the balance of Rs. 20,000 had been jointly allotted to the remaining members of the petitioner, i.e., Satish Chandra Modi, Tarulata and Sourabh. It is further claimed that a second partial partition was effected on 16/10/1978, partitioning another sum of Rs. 30,000 belonging to the petitioner-Hindu undivided family and allotting a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the minor, Sourabh, and the remaining Rs. 20,000 to the other three members of the Hindu undivided family, i.e., Satish Chandra Modi, Tarulata and Soham.

(3.) In the affidavit in support of the writ petitions given by Satish Chandra Modi, it is stated that in respect of the partial partition of 19/01/1976, though a claim was made on behalf of the petitioner before the Income-tax Officer during the relevant assessment year, he did not record any finding under section 171 of the Act. It is further stated that after the partial partition of 16/10/1978, the petitioner again made a claim before the Income-tax Officer that the amount of Rs. 20,000 allotted to Satish Chandra Modi, Tarulata and the minor, Soham, from out of the funds of the petitioner-Hindu undivided family should be assessed in the hands of "the smaller Hindu undivided family" and that this claim of the petitioner was specifically rejected by an order of the concerned Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1979-80 on the ground that there could not be a valid partition between the minor, Sourabh, on the one hand, and the remaining three members whereby a smaller Hindu undivided family with those three members would come into existence. Against the said order of the Income-tax Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the same was dismissed by order dated 4/10/1982. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the first respondent herein under section 264 of the Act.