APOORVA SHANTILAL SHAH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT-I, AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 35/1982Supreme Court[1983] 2 S.C.R. 49203 March 1983Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN25 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Apoorva Shantilal Shah, as Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), sought recognition of two partial partitions under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 1975-76. These partitions involved shares of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., occurring on December 24, 1973, and December 29, 1973. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) refused recognition, citing that the partitions were not at the minor sons' instance, the remaining shares were not allotted entirely to the remaining coparcener(s), and the distribution was unequal. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner (AAC) accepted the assessee's appeal, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed this, deeming the partitions invalid as they fell outside Hindu Law's framework for Section 171. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, ruling that a father cannot effect partial partition with minor sons under Hindu Law. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that a partial partition of Hindu joint family properties between a father and his minor sons, effected by the father, is valid and binding under Hindu Law. This right of the father, whether as 'patria potestas' or superior right, must be exercised bona fide and is subject to challenge by the sons if unfair. The Court found that the Income Tax Act, prior to the amendment by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 1980, clearly recognised partial partitions. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that partial partitions are only valid with the consent of all members and cannot be effected by the father's superior rights. The Court stated that the absence of equal distribution does not invalidate a partial partition, provided the father acts bona fide. Income-tax authorities cannot deem a partition invalid solely on the ground of unequal division; they can only refuse recognition if the partition is found to be sham or fictitious after proper enquiry. As there was no finding of sham or fictitious partition, the partial partition had to be recognised under Section 171. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declared the partial partition valid, and directed the ITO to recognise it for assessment purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a partial partition of Hindu joint family properties between a father and his minor sons, effected by the father in exercise of his right as 'patria potestas' or otherwise, is valid under Hindu Law and can be recognised under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that partial partition is permissible under Hindu Law, even when effected by the father with minor sons, and that the Income Tax Act, prior to the 1980 amendment, recognised partial partitions. They relied on judicial decisions supporting the validity of partial partitions. The assessee contended that the High Court erred in holding that such partitions are invalid and cannot be recognised under Section 171. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the partial partitions were invalid because they were not initiated by the minor sons, the remaining shares were not fully allotted to the remaining coparcener(s), and the distribution was unequal. They argued that such partitions were outside the framework of Hindu Law and thus not recognisable under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 171

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A ..;92 8 c, D E F G B APOORVA SHANTILAL SHAH v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT-I, AHMEDABAD March 3, 1983 [P. N. BHAGWATI AND AMARBNDRA NATH SEN, 'JJ.J "

Partial partition- lVhether the father in exercise of his right as "patrla potestas" or otherwise can effect a pa,tial partition between himself and his minor so1',_s of joint family properties of a Hindu Joint Family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law-Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 171. The assessee is a Hind undivided Family consisting of four members, namely, Sri Apoorva Sbantilat Shah, his wife Smt. Karuna and their minor sons Chintan and Tejat. During the assessment pertaining to the assessment year 1975-76. Shri Apoorva as a Karta of the H.U.F. made an application to the Income Tax Officer for recognising partial partition under S. 171 of the Income .Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming that two partial parti· tions had taken place amongst the members of the said family, one on 24.12.1973 in respect of 200 shares of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and the other on 29.12.1973 in respect of 1777 shares of the same company. The Ince.me Tax Officer refused to· recor

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 171

All 72 judgments and leading authorities on Section 171 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →