Joint Family Of Udayan Chinubhai Etc vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 14 October, 1966
13. In the case before us also, therefore, there were two separate assessable entities. One is the HUF consisting of Vimalbhai, Taramati, Gautam and Vikram which continued to hold all the properties other than the Saraspur property after June 5, 1969. The other separate assessable entity could be either the group consisting of Vimalbhai, Taramati and Gautam to whose share, on the partial partition of June 5, 1969, the Saraspur property was allotted or the assessable entries would be three individuals, Vimalbhai, Taramati and Gautam. It is not for us at the present juncture, or while dealing with the present reference, to decide whether there was a new HUF or a new assessable entity consisting of the three persons or whether they were tenants-in-common or whether the purchases price which was coming to the three of them should be treated as individual capital gains in individual hands, but one thin is very clear in the light of the decisions in Udayan Chinubhai's case [1967] 63 ITR 416 (SC) and Shantikumar Jagabhai's case [1976] 105 ITR 795 (Guj), namely, that the assess-HUF consisting of Vimalbhai, Taramati and Gautam and Vikram could not be said to have earned the capital gains from the sale of Saraspur property. Once the partial partiton was effected on June 5, 1969, this property went out of the hands of the assessee-HUF and whoever else may be assessed for capital gains in respect of the sale of the Saraspur property, assessee-HUF could not be assessed in respect of the same.