U.T.SHAH, J. M. - This is appeal against action of CIT(A) wherein he has upheld t h e order of ITO rejecting assessee s stand of partial partition and enhancing assessment. assessee is HUF. assessment year is 1980-81 and relevant previous year is S. Y. 2035 (ending on 21st Oct., 1979). facts of case are: (a) assessee-HUF consisted of five members viz. S/Shri Pujalal Lallubhai Shah, Atulkumar Pujalal Shah, Sharardkumar Pujalal Shah, Pradeep Pujalal Shah, (Minor) and Smt. Indumatiben Pujalal Shah. (b) assessee-HUF is partner in three firms viz. M/s Pipe Dealers, M/s Tube Dealers and M/s Pipe Distributors, having 32per cent, 30per cent and 39per cent share respectively. (c) said three firms came into existence under deeds of partnership dt. 29th march, 1979, 5th April, 1979 and 12th April, 1979 respectively. (d) By deed of partial partition dt. 29th Sept., 1979, Shri Sharadkumar Pujalal Shah took 5per cent share out of 32per cent share of assessee-HUF i n M/s Pipe Dealers along with part of money standing in account of assessee-HUF in said firm. (e) BY deed of partial partition dt. 3rd Oct., 1979, Shri Atulkumar Pujalal Shah took 5per cent share out of 30per cent share of assessee-HUF in M/s Tube Dealers alongwith part of money standing in account of assessee-HUF in said firm. (t) BY deed of partial partition dt. 4th Oct., 1979, Shri Pujalal Lallubhai Shah took 4per cent share out of 39per cent share of assessee-HUF in M/s Pipe Distributors along with apart of money standing in account of assessee-HUF in said firm. (g) Consequent upon aforesaid partial partitions. fresh deeds of partnership were executed in respect of aforesaid three firms on 3rd Oct., 1979, 5th Oct., 1979 and 5th Oct., 1979 respectively, incorporating necessary changes. (h) family consisting of four members filed returns declaring Rs. 29, 150 being 27per cent share from Ms Pipe Dealers, Rs. 31,250 being 25per cent share from M/s Tube Dealers and Rs. 45,679 being 35per cent share from M/s Pipe Distributors and ITO framed assessments (on protective basis) on 2nd March, 1983, 31st March, 1983 and 23rd Fed., 1983 respectively. On aforesaid facts, assessee-HUF took stand before ITO that due to aforesaid partial partitions, it no longer remained partner in any of said three-firms, therefore share of profit from each of said three firms was not includible in its total income. In draft assessment order framed under s. 143(3) 144B of Act, I T O invited assessee-HUF s objections in respect of its claim of partial partitions as well as inclusion of share of profits from each of said three firms which was rejected in following manner: "12. contention of assessee cannot be accepted as according to Hindu Law there cannot exist more than one HUF. In addition to that sub-s. 9 is added to s. 171 of IT Act, 1961, by which partial partition of HUF effected after 31st Dec., 1978 will not be recognised for income-tax purposes. where HUF has been taxed in status of "HUF", it will continue to be taxed as such unless there has been total partition of he family properties by means and bounds and finding to that effect has been recorded by ITO. In view of amendment made in s. 171 of he IT Act, 1961, it will not be competent for ITO to inquire into said partial partition having been taken place. According to cl. (b) of sub-s. 9 of s. 171, as per amendment made, family will continue to be taxes as "HUF" as if no partial partition has taken place. In view of facts stated above and in view of amendment made to s. 171 of IT Act, 1961, which came into existence from 31st Dec., 1978, partial partition made by assessee on 29th Sept., 1979, 4th Oct., 1979 between members of HUF and separate members are not recognised for partial partition and family will continue to be treated as joint and income arising from various partnership firms are treated as belonging to original HUF. contention of assessee that income from various partnership viz. M / s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad, M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay and M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur belongs to different groups of HUF is rejected and income from these partnership firms is added in total income of assessee, as belonging to HUF." assessee forwarded its objections as under: (1) That you have not given due consideration to decision of Gujarat High Court delivered in case of CIT vs. Shantikumar Jagabhai (1976) 105 ITR 795 (Gui) in as much as their Lordship has clearly held that there can be existence of HUF more than one; (2) That in our case our HUF is consisting of 5 members and income which you proposed to be included in our hands belongs to 4 quo-members of three different HUFs from three different partnership firms wherein from all three one member got separated; (3) That Karta of our present HUF is no longer continued as partner i n capacity of Karta of present HUF in partnership firms of whom you proposed to include income in hands of our HUF as new deed of partnership has been excuted amongst partners of said respective partnership firm and therefore, at time of closer of accounting year of respective partnership firms. Karta of our HUF have no share income in all three firms on date of closer of accounting year and therefore in said income cannot be included in present HUF consisting of 5 members; (4) that amendment which has been made in s. 171 by inserting new proviso of sub-s. 9 is made by Finance Act, 1980 w. e. f. 1st April, 1980 which has been made applicable from respective date and is not free from challenging before judicial authorities; (5) that fiction made by inserting sub-s. 9 in s. 171 is not at all applicable as s. 171 is machinery section and not charging section and therefore, by invoking proviso of sub-s. 9 of s. 171, you cannot include income earned by all-together three other firms wherein Karta of our HUF is no longer partner in capacity of Karta of our present HUF at closer of accounting year and therefore, income whatsoever earned by them and which you proposed to add in our hands is not tenable in law; (6) that partition of whatsoever nature effected amongst coparceners of our HUF after 31st Dec., 1978 is valid partition under Hindu Law and exerciseable in Court of law by any member thereof, if Court of Law by any dispute amongst themselves; (7) that you have mentioned in order that by invoking proviso sub-s. 9 of s. 171, income which has been assessed in hands of this present HUF is continued to be added in present HUF and no partition made is to be recognised under that section affected after 31st Dec., 1978 for which I would like to state you that income of three firms viz. M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad of Rs. 29,150 M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay of Rs. 31,250 and M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur of Rs. 45,679 are not hitherto assessed in hands of present HUF and therefore, though proviso you have applied income stated hereinabove is not required to be added in hands of this present HUF as income earlier assessed in hands of HUF is only to be added in hands of present HUF while income from above three partnership firms has arisen for first time during year under review. Thus for reasons and sub-missions stated hereinabove I kly object additions in present HUF consisting of 5 members of following partnership firms while computing total income of present HUF. share income from: M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Rs. 29,150 M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay Rs. 31,250 M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur Rs. 45,679 And therefore, I humbly request you to drop inclusion of said income in hands of my present HUF and my return of income filed should be accepted in toto." Thereafter, ITO referred matter to IAC who after hearing assessee and tracing legislative history regarding s. 171 of Act, gave following directions to ITO: " In view of foregoing discussion ITO s proposed action to include share income from firm in total income of assessee-HUF is confirmed. ITO is directed to complete assessment in case of assessee accordingly." On 20th July, 1983, ITO finalised assessment with following remarks: " 9. It is therefore, contended by assessee that income received from M / s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad, M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay and M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur does not belong to HUF of Pujalal L. Shah with members as stated above. Accordingly, HUF excluding separated members has filed separate returns showing partnership share income M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad, M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay and M/s Pipe Distibutors, Jaipur as belonging to separate entity of HUF, from which one member has been separated according to partial partition deed executed as disclosed above. It is further stated by assessee that in view of decision in case of Shri Shantikumar Jagabhai of Gujarat High Court there can be multiple HUF so assessee has requested to accept returns of income showing income from various partnership firms excluding income from firms stated above, from which member of HUF has separated and it was contended that HUF s excluding members who have been separated are partners in firms referred to above. contention of assessee cannot be accepted as according to Hindu Law there cannot exist more than one HUF. In addition to that sub-s. 9 is added s. 171 of IT Act, 1961, by which partial partition of HUF affected after 31st Dec., 1978 will not be recognised for income-tax purpose, where HUF has been taxed in status of HUF will continue to be taxed as such unless there has been total partition of family properties by means and bounds and finding to effect has been recorded by ITO. In view of he amendment made in s. 171 of IT Act, 1961 it will not be competent for ITO to inquire into said partial partition having been taken place. According to cl. (b) of sub-s. 9 of s. 171 as per amendment made family will continue to be liable to be taxed as "HUF" as if partial partition has taken place. In view of facts stated above, partial partition made by assessee on 29th Sept., 1979, 3rd Oct., 1979 and 4th Oct., 1979 between members of HUF and separated members are not recognised for partition and family continues to be treated as joint and income arising from various partnership firms are required to be considered as belonging to bigger HUF. Since income to b e added and included as belonging to HUF which was prejudicial to assessee exceeded sum of one lakh, draft of assessment order was forwarded to assessee as per this office letter No. IV-D/HV- 2461/ 202-P/82- 83 dt. 30th March, 1983 and assessee filed his reply to variation proposed in income as per his letter dt. 6th April, 1983. objections received from assessee were forwarded to IAC, A. R. Ahmedabad as per this office letter No. IV. D/HT-2461/202-P/82-83 dt. 14th April, 1983. IAC A. R. IV, Ahmedabad vide his letter No. 144-B/S/IV/83-84 dt. 19th July, 1983 has after hearing assessee s representative and after considering draft assessment order and assessee s objection etc. issued directions under s. 144B(4) of Act, and copy of which is also enclosed with this order, copy of which was forwarded to assessee also. In view of directions contained in letter of IAC referred to above, contention of assessee that income from various partnership firms viz. M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad, M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay and M/s Pipe Distributors jaipur belongs to different group of HUF is rejected and income from these partnership firm is added in total income of assessee, as belonging to HUF." However, in computing total income of assessee, ITO included Rs. 29,150 Rs. 31,250 and Rs. 45,679 being 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent respectively share of profit from M/s Pipe Dealers, M/s Tube Dealers and M / s Pipe Distributors instead of 32per cent, 30per cent and 39per cent respectively in total income of assessee-HUF. In appeal before CIT(A), assessee once again urged that its stand regarding partial partitions of shares in each of said three firms should be accepted and that addition of Rs. 29,150, Rs. 31,250 and Rs. 45,679 should be deleted. In view of insertion of sub-s. (9) in s. 171 of Act, by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, CIT(A) upheld ITO s action regarding issue of partial partitions. However Commissioner (A) noticed that instead of 32per cent, 30per cent and 39per cent share of profit respectively from said three firms, ITO had considered 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent respectively (i. e. as per deeds of partial partition ) as share of assessee HUF. He, therefore, enquired of assessee-HUF as to why assessment should not be enhanced. As assessee HUF challenges enhancement done by CIT(A), it would be necessary to reproduce below letter dt. 28th Nov., 1983 of CIT(A) addressed to assessee-HUF: " Sub:- Notice of enhancement of income- You have filed appeal against I O s order dt. 20th July, 1983 for asst. yr. 1980-81 challenging inclusion of following income in your hands: (i) Rs. 29,150 being share of profit from partnership firm of M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad; (ii) Rs. 31,250 being share of profit from partnership firm of M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay; and (iii) Rs. 45,679 being share of profit from partnership firm of M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur. From discussion of case with your ld. Representative, Shri J. P. Shah, Advocate and Shri Dhirubhai Shah, C> A>, it appears that share income from above mentioned three partnership firms bas been assessed by ITO at 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent respectively. It appears that after share of profit from M/s Pipe Distributors has gone to Pujalal Lallubhai shah Similarly 5per cent share of profit of M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay has gone to Shri Atulkumar Pujalal Shah. In other words, as against 32per cent share of profit from M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad, 39per cent share from M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur and 30per cent from M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay, ITO has assessed share of profits at 27per cent, 37per cent and 25per cent respectively in your hands for asst. yr. 1980-81. As all three partial partitions of 29th Sept., 1979, 3rd Oct., 1979 and 4th Oct., 1979 have not been recognised by ITO principally because of s. 17(9) of IT Act, 1961, ITO appears to have made mistake in not assessing entire share income from above firms, namely 32per cent, 35per cent and 39per cent result of nonrecognition of factum of partial partition, in your case would be that entire share income from above mentioned 3 firms, as it stood prior to execution of partial partition deeds shall have to be assessed in your hands. BY not assessing entire share income from aforesaid firms in your hands ITO has committed mistake. I therefore, propose to enhance your income by adding 5per cent of share of profit from M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad, 5per cent share of profit from M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay and 4per cent share of profit from M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur Before I do so, I hereby give opportunity of being heard to you. You are requested to please show cause why proposed enhancement to your income for asst. yr. 1980-81 may not be made. Your case is accordingly fixed for hearing on 17th Dec., 1983 at 11-00 a. m . in my office at First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 3830009. If no reply is received nor any oral or written representation is made then it will be presumed that you agree to proposes enhancement of income." Vide its letter dt. 7th Jan., 1984, assessee HUF submitted before C I T (A) that he cannot enhance assessment. Here also, it would be necessary to reproduce below said letter: " We are in receipt of your enhancement notice dt. 28th Nov., 1983. We are thankful to execution of partial partition deeds dt. 29th Sept., 1979, 3 Oct., 1979 and 4th Oct., 1979 copies of which were filed before me by your ld. Representative on 26th Nov., 1983, 5per cent of profit of M/s Pipe Dealers, has gone to Sharad Pujalal Shah. Similarly 4per cent to you for granting to us extension of time for replying above notice. Our respectful reply thereto is as follows: You will kindly appreciate that partnerships is matter of agreement between partners. It is never thing which follows as consequence from partition like partition of any immovable property or movable property. Now diminution of share of HUF of which Karta is partner and increase of share of any other partner is result of agreement between partners and not result of mere partition. We submit that above is well settled position at law. Nonetheless we may draw your kind attention to Supreme Court decision in Prembhai Parekh vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 27 (SC) to support above well settled position at law. If this is so, we submit that increased share of partner with made you propose to enhance by to above notice will not be sustainable in law. Without prejudice to above, please note that your above enhancement notice tried to add income from source which is not processed by ITO and therefore, we submit that enhancement notice is beyond your jurisdiction. Further, please note that appellant in this matter is not HUF which is partner in above firms. appellant in this matter consists of (1) Shri Pujalal L. Shah, (2) his wife Indumatiben and his three sons Atul, Sharad and Pradip, whereas HUF which is partner in above firms is different because of he different membership than above and such different HUF is partner as result of agreement of partnership and what we submitted in para-1 above and above decision of Prembhai Parekh will apply with equal force to this point also, though it may be clarified that this paragraph is not in respect of your enhancement notice but is in respect of original grounds of appeal. We have refrained from stating here arguments advanced before you orally at time of hearing of appeal by your goodself, so please note." In his order under appeal, CIT(A) overruled assessee-HUF s contentions and directed ITO to include 32per cent, 30per cent and 39per cent share of profit respectively from said firms in total income of assessee-HUF, in following manner: "18. I have given careful thought to submission made in appellant s reply dt. 7th Jan., 1984. It may be mentioned that supreme Court decision in case of Prembhai Parekh (supra) was rendered under s. 16 of IT Act, 1922 which is in pari materia with s. 64 of IT Act, 1961. In said decision, Supreme Court had to interpret provisions of s. 16 of old Act, and to decide whether any income of minor child arose directly or indirectly from assets transferred by assessee to those minors. In that case assessee had transferred to each of his minor sons sum of Rs. 75,000. amount contributed by those minors as their share in firm came from those amounts. supreme Court held that connection between gifts made by assessee and income earned from firm was remote one. It was further held that income of minors arose as result of their admission to benefits of partnership. It was emphasised by supreme Court that s. 16(3) of IT Act, 1922 created artificial liability and so section must receive strict construction. As already pointed out above, Supreme Court decision in case of premabhai Parekh (supra) was rendered in context of s. 16 of IT Act. 1922. In instant case we are not concerned with s. 16 of old Act, or s. 64 of New Act. question in instant case is very simple. If members of he HUF becomes partner in particular firm then by virtue of over-riding title share income of he partner has to be assessed in hands of HUF. In instant case, member of appellant HUF became partner in M/s Pipe Dealers. M/s Tube Dealers and M/s Pipe Distributors. funds of HUF were invested in those firms. partnership deeds referred to fact that appellant HUF had become partner. At that time HUF consisted of five members as mentioned in para-1 above. If no partial partitions had taken place then share income from aforementioned three firms would have been assessed in hands of he appellant HUF. Now partial partitions took place and as result of partial partitions part of share income from aforesaid firms and certain other amount were taken away by separating members. Sec. 171(9) read with Explanation makes it very clear that partial partition can be as regards persons constitution HUF of he property belonging to HUF or both. In instant case when certain members separated as regards certain properties, partial partition automatically took place. Now partnership deeds in respect of aforementioned three partnership firms had to be drawn up essentially as consequence of partial partitions that had taken place in appellant-HUF. As result of partial partitions appellant HUF which had 32per cent share in M/s Pipe Dealers came to have 27per cent share in said firm and remaining 5per cent share went to Shri Sharadkumar P. Shah. Similarly in case of M/s Tube Dealers, original share of 30per cent was substituted by 25per cent share for HUF and 5per cent share for Shri Atulkumar P. Shah, In same manner original share of 39per cent in M/s Pipe Distributors was reduced to 35per cent in hands of HUF and 4per cent went ot Shri Pujalal Lallubhai Shah. When law says that partial partitions have not to be recognised after 31st Dec., 1978, then natural consequence would be that partial partitions effected after that date shall have to be ignored for purpose of income-tax assessment. Whether old member representing HUF in aforementioned partnership firms continues to represent appellant HUF or not after reconstitution of firms as result of partial partitions to my mind would not be relevant for purposes of s. 171(9). It is also not correct to say that Income-tax Officer has not processed source of income which is subject matter of enhancement in this case. ITO has already assessee 27per cent share income from M/s Pipe Dealers, 25per cent share income from M/s Pipe Dealers 35per cent share income from M / s Pipe Distributors, What was proposed to be done, as result of enhancement notice, was to direct ITO to assess 32per cent share income from M/s Pipe Dealers, 30per cent share income from M/s Tube Dealers and 39per cent share from M/s Pipe Distributors. These sources had already been processed by ITO and enhancement notice is therefore, within my jurisdiction. Having regard to all facts and circumstances of he case I am of opinion that in view of s. 171(9) entire share income from aforesaid three firms has to be assessed in hands of he appellant HUF. action of ITO in assessing 27per cent share income from M/s Pipe Dealers, 25per cent share income from M/s Tube Dealers and 35per cent share income from M/s Pipe Distributors is confirmed. In addition, ITO is directed to take additional share income of 5per cent from M/s Pipe Dealers, 5per cent from M/s Tube Dealers and 4per cent from M/s Pipe Distribution and assess it in hands of appellant HUF hands of appellant HUF. upshot of above discussion is that following share income would be assessable in hands of he appellant HUF: (1) 32per cent share income from M/s Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad (2) 30per cent share income from M/s Tube Dealers, Bombay & (3) 39per cent share income from M/s Pipe Distributors, Jaipur. As copies of assessment orders of aforesaid firms and copies of share income as per banks are not available on record, ITO shall take share income as per banks are not available on record, ITO shall take share income as discussed above. In result, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. On other hand, there would be enhancement of income to extent indicated above." Being aggrieved by order of he CIT(A), assessee-HUF has come up in appeal before Tribunal At outset, ld. counsel for assessee HUF was fair enough to state that in view of insertion of sub-s. (9) in s. 171 of Act, by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, he would not like to make any fresh submissions than that already made before IT authorities in respect of claim for partial partition. However, he stated that it would be his endeavour to impress upon Tribunal that CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing assessment. Apart from reiterating submissions which were made before CIT(A), ld. counsel for assessee vehemently argued that after partial partitions, original HUF consisting of five members no longer remained in existence, but smaller-HUF consisting of four members came in to being which. according to him, was entirely different from "bigger- HUF" i. e. original HUF consisting of five members. It was this HUF consisting of four members which became partner in each of three said firms. Therefore, even share of profits of 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent respectively, considered by ITO in hands of assessee-HUF was unwarranted. He further went on to argue that since share of profit received by each of separated members was assessed in their individual/smaller-HUF hands, same cannot be touched by CIT(A). In order words. he wanted to impress upon Tribunal that since shares of profit in each of said three firms could not be and was not processed by ITO, CIT(A) clearly had no power to enhance assessment in manner he did. In this connection, he invited attention of Tribunal to deeds of partial partition as well as deeds of partnership executed after partial partitions and submitted that assessee-HUF is entirely different entity than HUFs consisting of four members which came into being as result of partial partitions which he preferred to call "truncated HUFs" According to ld. counsel for assessee, we have to give due consideration to various documents executed by parties in their proper perspective. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Shsapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1947) 44 ITR 891 (SC) and CIT vs. Bahadur Hardutraj Motilal Chamaria Commissioner (A) has no power to enhance assessment by searching new source of income not processed by ITO. He, therefore, submitted that order of Commissioner (A) should be set aside in so far as his directing ITO to include entire share of profit of 32per cent, 30per cent and 39per cent respectively of said three firms, in total income of assessee. ld. Representative for Revenue, on other hand, kly supported action of Commissioner (A). In view of insertion of sub-s. (9) in s. 171 of Act, Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, he submitted that assessee-HUF s claim for partial partition has been rightly rejected by IT authorities. As regards assessee-HUF s contentions in respect of Commissioner (A) s power of enhancement, he submitted that they should not be accepted as they are devoid of any merits. In this connection he submitted that prior to partial partitions, assessee-HUF was partner in said three firms. Thus having established source of income by way of share of profits of 32per cent , 30per cent and 39per cent respectively, by deeds of partial partition, this source of in come was split into two in each of said three firms. assessee-HUF retained 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent respectively while separating members took away 5per cent, 5per cent and 4per cent respectively, This aspect of matter becomes clear if we read together and as whole there deeds of partial partition as well as three deeds of partnership drawn after partial partitions. He, therefore, urged that submissions made on behalf of assessee HUF that three new and different "truncated HUF s came into being should be rejected outright. According to ld. Representative for Revenue, there was only one source fo income and not more than one or different sources of income as contended on behalf of assessee-HUF. Thereafter, he invited attention of Tribunal to relevant portions of order of ITO (reproduced above) and highlighted fact that in view of provision of s. 171(9) of Act, he had rejected claim of partial partitions. Consequently, ITO should have considered assessee-HUF s share of profit of 32per cent , 30per cent and 39per cent respectively from said three firms. But inadvertantly, he considered 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent respectively which Commissioner (A) was competent to set right by enhancing assessment in manner he did. He further submitted that decisions in case of shapoorji Pallanji (supra) and Rai Bahadur hardutrai Chamaria (supra) would not be of much held to assessee-HUF as facts and circumstance obtaining in present case are clearly distinguishable from facts and circumstance obtaining in those cases. In those cases, ITO had never considered or processed particular source of income which AAC attempted to consider for first time in appellate proceedings. On contrary, in present case ITO had very much considered/processed source of income viz. assessee-HUF s share of profit from said three firms which Commissioner (A) took into consideration, while enhancing assessment and nothing further. He further submitted that even if "truncated HUF s" and separated members have shown their respective share of profit in their returns and even if same were accepted by their respective ITOs, that would not further case of assessee-HUF as same was based on partial partitions which are not recognised under IT Act, 1961 w. e. f. 1st p r i l , 1980. According to ld. Representative for Revenue, Commissioner (A) has simply corrected arithmetical mistake committed by ITO in considering assessee-HUF s share of profit of 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent instead of 32per cent, 30per cent and 39per cent respectively from said three firms. This mistake could have been rectified ITO under s. 154 of Act. Instead of this, Commissioner (A) who is equally competent to do so, has done it. In other words, he submitted that since powers of Commissioner (A) are coterminous with that of ITO, Commissioner (A) had jurisdiction to enhance assessment. He, therefore, urged that order of Commissioner (A) should be upheld by Tribunal. ld. counsel for assessee, in his reply, once again emphasised that assess-HUF was quite different entity and shares in three firms belonged to "truncated HUFs". For this submission, he once again referred to deeds of partnership drawn subsequent to partial partition. We have carefully considered rival submissions of parties as well s material already brought on record and we do not find any merit in submissions made on behalf of assessee-HUF. In view of insertion of submissions made on behalf of assessee-HUF. In view of insertion of sub-s. (9) in s. 171 of Act, by Finance (No. 2) Act. 1980, IT authorities were fully justified in not accepting partial partitions effected by assessee-HUF in respect of its share of profits from aforesaid three firms. Now, main issue to be considered is whether, Commissioner(A) has exceeded his jurisdiction in directing ITO to include entire share of profit of 32per cent, 30per cent & 39per cent respectively from aforesaid three firms in total income of assessee. In giving decision on this issue. it would be necessary first to find out whether on execution of deeds of partial partition assessee HUF ceased to exist in eyes of law. Now, when we turn to deeds of partial partition which are more or less similarly drafted, we find that one of members of assessee-HUF had "asked for his separate share in profit and capital invested" in firm (s). Further, we find from recital that "the remaining parties have agreed to carve out share of firm and to land it cover to him and have also further agreed to continue between themselves as joint Hindu family of them for qya said property to be so partitioned". (in place of mark XXX name of separating member is mentioned). Now, in deeds of partnership executed after partial partitions HUF consisting of four members is mentioned with view to clarify that separated member had no right, title and interest in share of HUF in he firm. Reading of these documents together and as whole, it is not possible to accept submissions made on behalf of assessee-HUF that it ceased to have any share of profit in aforesaid three firms. It is no doubt true that HUF consisting of four members had filed returns of income declaring their respective share of profit in aforesaid three firms and that assessments were framed by way of protective measure in their hands. However, this fact by itself, in our opinion, would not debar IT authorities to consider share of profit of assessee-HUF in aforesaid three firms. It maybe true shat under Hindu law, partial partition effected by members of assessee-HUF may be possible, however in view of specific provisions contained in s. 171(9) of Act, such partial partition is not recognised under Act, and HUF continues to be same as if no partial partition had taken place. In this view of matter, entire share of profit of 32per cent, 30per cent, and 39per cent respectively in aforesaid three firms has to be considered in hands of assessee-HUF. From draft assessment order, directions of IAC given under s. 144B of Act, and final assessment order (the relevant portions of which are reproduced above), it is difficult to accept submissions made on behalf of assessee that ITO had only considered share of profit of 27per cent, 25per cent and 35per cent respectively from aforesaid three firms in hands of assessee-HUF. It appears to us that ITO inadvertently omitted to consider share of profit of 5per cent, 5per cent and 4per cent respectively carved out in favour of separating members of assessee-HUF while computing total income. It is this aspect of matter, which Commissioner (A) tried to correct by enhancing assessment after giving opportunity of being heard to assessee in this regard. It is worth while to note that only source of income of assessee-HUF in three firms was by way of share of profit of 32per cent, 30per cent and 39per cent This source of income was split into in case of each of firms by deeds of partial partition. However, as mentioned above once partial partitions are held to be not recognised under Act. source of income would remain same as before partial partition. Therefore, we are not prepared to accede to submissions made on behalf of assessee-HUF that in giving direction to ITO to include entire share of profit of assessee-HUF in aforesaid three firms in hands of assessee-HUF, Commissioner (A) had enhanced assessment by discovering new source of income not mentioned in return of assessee or considered by ITO in order appealed against. We have carefully gone through aforesaid decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in cases of Shapoorju Pallonji Mistry (supra) and Raj Bahadur Hardutroy Mtilal Chamaria (supra). We entirely agree with submissions made on behalf of Revenue that facts and circumstances obtaining in instant case are clearly distinguishable form facts and circumstances considered by Hon ble Supreme Court in those two cases. On contrary, we are of view cases. On contrary, we are of view that discussion and ratio laid down in said two cases support action of Commissioner (A). With view to appreciate this conclusion, we reproduce below headstones of said two cases: "Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry: In appeal filed by assessee AAC has no power to enhance assessment by discovering new sources of income not mentioned in return of assessee or considered by ITO in order appealed against. Rai Bhadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria: AAC has no jurisdiction under s. 13(3) of Indian IT Act, 1922, to assessee source of income which is not disclosed either in returns filed by assessee or in assessment order. It is not therefore open to AAC to travel outside record, i. e., return made by assessee or assessment order of ITO, with view to finding out new sources of income and power of enhancement under s. 31(3) is restricted to sources of income which have been subject-matter of consideration by ITO from point of view of taxability. In this context "consideration " does not mean "incidental" or "collateral" examination of any matter by ITO in process of assessment. There must be something in assessment order to show that ITO applied his mind to particular subject-matter or particular source of income with view to its tax-ability or to its non-taxability and not to any incidental connection." It is by now trite law that powers of Commissioner (A) are co- terminus with powers of ITO. In instant case, ITO had already considered/processed assessee s claim for exclusion of share of profit from aforesaid three firms. from total income. In other words, ITO had considered/Processed source of income of assessee, which in appeal, Commissioner (A) had considered without assistance of any fresh facts or material which are not on record. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that Commissioner(A) had enhanced assessment "by discovering new sources of income not mentioned in return of assessee or considered by ITO in order appealed against". There is ample evidence on record to show that ITO had applied him mined to source of income of assessee-HUF in aforesaid three firms with view to determine its taxability or not. In hands of assessee-HUF. Therefore, it is difficult to accept sub-missions made on behalf of assessee that enhancement made by Commissioner (A) was on account of "incidental" or "collateral" examination of any matter by ITO in process of assessment. In other words, once assessee s claim for partial partition is negatived in view of insertion of sub-s. (9) in s. 171 of Act, by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, entire case of assessee falls to ground like house built of cards. In this view of matter. we have no hesitation to hold that Commissioner (A) had jurisdiction to enhance assessment in manner he did. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** PUJALAL L. SHAH (HUF) v. INCOME TAX OFFICER