PRAKASH NARAIN, A.M. Order common contention in these appeals relates to inclusion of value of 57,000 shares in Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. It was claimed before WTO that above shares had been distributed among following members of family as per family award by court of Civil Judge, Gorakhpur in Suit No. 285 of 1972. . . No. of shares 1. Shri Dalip Singh Majithia 12,000 2. Smt. Jooan Majithia (wife) 5,000 3. Smt. Meera Singh Aori 20,000 4. Smt. Kiran Dhinda 20,000 . Total 57,000 It was, therefore, submitted before WTO that value of above shares could not be included in assessment of assessee HUF. WTO did not accept claim. Of course, he also did not discuss issue in his orders. He simply included their value in above two assessment years. It is not necessary for us to deal with question of valuation as that matter has been settled by CWT (A), who has valued above shares at Rs. 9,25,965 against which there is no grievance before us by either party. 2 . inclusion of value of shares in assessments was confirmed by CWT (A) with following observations : "8. I find that WTO did not accept contention because there was no application for partition of HUF and no order under s. 20 of WT Act was recorded. Unless such order is recorded, it will not be possible to accept assessees claim of partition. I, therefore, hold that 57,000 shares have been correctly included in applicant's hands." 3 . assessee is now in appeal before us. ld. counsel for assessee submitted before us that s. 20 applied only to complete partition and that it did not deal with partial partitions at all. He submitted that besides above shares, assessee also had other movable and immovable properties and that partition as per decree of court in Suit No. 285 of 1972 had taken with reference to only 57,000 shares in Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd., which was in nature of partial partition of part of assets belonging to assessee. On his part, he referred to decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Dwarka Nath vs. CWT (1966) 62 ITR 304 (All). 4 . above proposition was disputed by ld. departmental representative. He referred to following decisions : 1. Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 345 : (1981) 131 ITR 451 (SC). 2. Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (SC) 415 : (1982) 133 ITR 690 (SC). 5 . We have carefully considered submissions placed before us. issue to us appears to be fully covered by decision of Allahabad High Court in Dwarka Nath (supra). It was held in this case that when there was change in net wealth of assessee during valuation date itself, for example, by acquisition or transfer of assets on that date, it is net wealth as it stood at last moment of valuation date that has to be adopted for purposes of assessment to wealth-tax. court also held that s. 20 of WT Act was not applicable to case as that section provided for case of partition of joint family. Court observed that condition that there was severance of status of jointness is pre-requisite for application of s. 20, which is not case in case of partial partition as in case of partial partition there is no severance of status of jointness. According to court, partial partition was not governed by s. 20 of Act. 6 . above decision of Allahabad High Court, therefore, is sufficient to decide present issue before us. However, since it was argued from both sides at somewhat length, we will also like to add few more comments in deference to parties. We will first refer to s. 25A of Indian IT Act, 1922. That section laid down that where it was claimed by or on behalf of any member of HUF that partition had taken place, then ITO was to make enquiry and then pass order. interpretation of this section came up for consideration before Privy Council in case of Sir Sundar Singh Majithia vs. CIT (1942 10 ITR 457 (PC). It may be of interest to note that Sir Sunder Singh Majithia was one of ancestors of present-assessee. court held that s. 25A of above Act did not prohibit members of HUF from entering into partnership in respect of portion of joint property which they had partitioned among themselves. According to court, s. 25A had no reference at all to case in which HUF had parted with item of its property to its individual members and continued in existence at time of assessment never having been disrupted. 7 . Sec. 25A was re-drafted as s. 171 in IT Act of 1961. According to this new section in new Act, order had to be passed if it was claimed that partition, whether total or partial, had taken place among members of family. In other words, there was change in position in s. 171 as compared to position prevailing under s. 25A of Act of 1922. 8 . WT Act was enacted in 1957. language contained in s. 20 of this Act was borrowed from language of s. 25A of Act of 1922. Obviously, therefore, principle laid down by Privy Council in case of Sir Sundar Singh Majithia (supra), applied to this section also. This is exactly what Allahabad High Court has held in case of Dwarka Nath (supra). This was also view of ld. author A. C. Sampath Iyengar in his Commentary on Wealth-tax. Commenting on s. 20 of WT Act, ld. Author stated : "Unlike s. 171 of IT Act, present section does not deal with cases of partial partitions at all." 9 . Of course by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, new s. 20A has been introduced in WT Act which deals with cases of partial partitions also. However, only those partial partitions which have taken place after 1st Dec., 1978 come within purview of this section. In present case, partial partition as per Court's decree had taken place sometime in 1971. Sec. 20A has, therefore, no application to present case. 10. As stated above, s. 20 of WT Act also have no application to present case. There is, therefore, no merit in contention of ld. departmental representative that WTO should be directed to make enquiry as laid down in s. 20 of Act. When section has no application to case, it is not necessary to apply it or to see that procedure for purpose of section is complied with. 11. decision of Supreme Court in Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT (supra) deals with entirely different situation and is, therefore, not applicable to facts of present case. second decision of Supreme Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) vs. CIT (supra) on other hand, deals with s. 171 of IT Act, 1961. court, in any case, has again clarified that s. 25A of 1922 Act was not applicable to partial partitions while s. 171 of Act of 1961 applied to all partitions total and partial. 12. Our finding, therefore, is that s. 20 had no application to partial partition as is case with assessee. Since there is not doubt that shares of Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. had been divided amongst various members of family as per ward of court in suit No. 285 of 1972 and no longer belonged to assessee on valuation dates of respective years, they cannot be included in assessments of assessee of both above assessment years. We, therefore, direct that their value should be excluded from assessments of both above assessment years. 13. In result, both appeal are allowed. *** S. DALIP SINGH MAJITHIA v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER