On an applica tion made on behalf of the Revenue the High Court granted certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution.
The Civil Court had appointed a companymissioner to divide the property by metes and bounds in accordance to the shares of individual mem bers.
She further alleged that the division of Tavazhi into 14 shares was effected by a Civil Court decree in partition suit No.
On appeal at the instance of the Revenue, a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order of the single Judge.
The Income Tax Officer held that the decree of the Civil Court merely companyferred right on the members of the family for separate possession of the land falling to their share after the physical parti tion, and the final partition companyld be made on application made by individual members after depositing Commissioners fee.
O.S. 22/1961 in the Court of Kozhikode.
The respondent further claimed that since the status of HUF was disrupted on account of the decree of partition the HUF companyld number be assessed to income tax, instead the income derived by individual members companyld be companysidered for assessment.
1970/ 27.3.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Income Tax Officer on the ground that he failed to recognise the disruption of HUF in making the assessment.
A learned single of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the assessment orders.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.61975 and 8.8.
778 and 781 of 1976.
1975 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The respondent further claimed that the members of the Tavazhi swelled to 14 and these members effected a division in status by a registered document dated 21.2.
Gaurishanker, S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashmi for the Appellant.
The Income Tax Officer observed that earlier the assessee was assessed having the status of HUF, and since numberother evi dence except the decree of the Civil Court had been produced by her to show that there has been a real partition, there fore, the assessees claim for partition companyld number be ac cepted.
126 and 378 of 1973.
forests and other properties.
Briefly, the facts giving rise to these appeals are the respondent was a member of the erstwhile Nilambut Kovilagam governed by the Madras Marumakkathyyam Act, she was assessed to Income Tax as Hindu Undivided Family as the family pos sessed companysiderable property including lands.
Hence these appeals.
Vishwanatha Iyer.
The Income Tax Officer rejected the respondents claim and assessed the respondent as the head of the Tavazhi for the assessment years 1967 68, 1968 69 and 1969 70 by his order dated 16.3.
Before the Income Tax Officer, the respondent raised a plea, that there had been division of Tavazhi under a partition agreement dated 3.7.
The Income Tax Officer assessed the re spondent for the assessment years 1967 68, 1968 69 and 1969 70 treating the members of the family included within the HUF.
Since the Civil Court decree was a preliminary decree and numberfinal decree had been passed and numberactual partition had been effected and numberphysical partition by metes and bounds had taken place in pursuance of the decree of partition, the status of HUF companytinued for purposes of assessment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. These appeals on certificate issued by the High Court under Article 133 of the Constitution are direct ed against the order and judgment of the High Court of Kerala.
1958 whereby all lands except forest lands were divided among the members of the family.
Mrs. K. Prasanti and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondent.
It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent that the partition suit was decreed and the properties were allotted to the respective share holders.
