These appeals by revenue are directed against common order of t h e Commissioner (Appeals) excluding agricultural income from total income on ground that it does not belong to assessee-HUF, even though partial partition has not been accepted by ITO. reason given by Commissioner (Appeals) is that inclusion of agricultural income for purpose of applying rate of tax is under self-contained rules in Finance Act and, therefore, provision of section 171 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') could not be applied to ascertain whether such net agricultural income belongs to HUF or not. revenue has taken exception to this reason by contending that provisions of Fi nance Act are supplementary to provisions of 1961 Act and when claim of partial partition has been rejected under section 171 , it cannot be taken into account for determining net agricultural income that has to be added for rate purposes. On other hand, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that provisions of section 171 apply to income taxable under Act with regard to net agricultural income which is not taxable but added only for rate purposes, general law relating to partition should be applied. Emphasis was laid on subsection (4) of section 171 and it was pointed out that where partition is recognised under section 171 , total income of joint family shall be assessed up to date of partition as if no partition had taken place, thus, indicating that these provisions apply only to total income which is defined under section 2(45) of Act as income computed under provisions of Act and could not include net agricultural income. 2. On consideration of rival submissions, we are of opinion that revenue is entitled to succeed. assessee is HUF which had coffee estate known as 'Karehadlu Estate' in addition to certain other assets. It was claimed that there was partial partition with effect from 1-4-1978 and coffee estate was decided among coparceners and ceased to be asset of HUF. assessee claimed that this partial partition was evidenced by declaration dated 28-1-1979. But, ITO passed order under section 171 on 30-3-1982 rejecting claim of partial partition on ground that there was no division of these assets by metes and bounds. As pointed out by Supreme Court in case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 690, though under Hindu law in item of property need not in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds, income-tax law has introduced certain conditions to give effect to partition and to recognise it under section 171. If transaction does not satisfy above additional condition, it cannot be treated as partition under Act, even though under Hindu law, there has been partition. Finance Act provides for aggregation of net agricultural income with total income only for purposes of charging income-tax in resent of total income. Part IV of Finance Act lays down rules for computation of net agricultural income. Commissioner (Appeals) has laboured under view that Schedule to Finance Act is complete code in itself and, therefore, provisions of section 171 could not be applied to determine net agricultural income of assessee. We find that this view is opposed to provisions of 1961 Act. because Finance Act is not independent statute but only supplement to 1961 Act. Rule 12 in Part IV of Finance Act itself says that for purposes of computing net agricultural income, ITO shall have same powers as he has under Act for purposes of assessment of total income. Secondly, under section 171 , HUF shall be deemed to continue as HUF until finding of partition is given by ITO. That finding is dependent upon division of property by metes and bounds. In circumstances, it is not possible for HUF of continue to be owner of agricultural lands for purposes of assessment under Act, while, at same time, be taken to be deprived of lands for purposes of ascertaining net agricultural income. Since Finance Act is only supplement to 1961 Act, deeming provisions of section 171 must continue to apply in respect of entire assessment to cover both total income and net agricultural income as we cannot let our imagination boggle when it comes to application of fiction created by section 171 in making assessment. argument that there is no reference to agricultural income in section 171 is of no consequence since section 171 was primarily enacted for purpose of assessing total income and supervisions of Finance Act were later supplement to Act. Rule 12 of Part IV takes care of this by providing that provisions of 1961 Act and powers of ITO extend to computation of net agricultural income also. In circumstances, even if we should assume that there is lacuna by omission to amend section 171 as was done by Commissioner (Appeals), that lacuna has been filled up by rule 12. In circumstances, we are convinced that net agricultural income of HUF has to be aggregated for purposes of ascertaining rate of tax applicable to assessee, inasmuch as partial partition has not been recognized under section 171. We, therefore, reverse order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restore order of ITO. appeals are allowed. *** SECOND INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SRI VINOD D. AROOR