H.S. AHLUWALIA, J.M. very ticklish issue is involved in these appeals. dispute relates to computation of net wealth of assessee-HUF- It appears that on 6th Nov., 1978 Shri Hukmichand s/o Shri Bhanwarlal expressed his desire to have his share separated from gold and silver or ornaments and diamonds of HUF on 8th Nov., 1978, deed of relinquishment was executed by Shri Hukmichand by which he received 350 gms gold and 4,600 kg of silver ornaments and relinquished his rights and title in gold and silver ornaments and diamonds of HUF. ITO on income-tax assessment of year recorded fining of partial partition in relation to this jewellery. However, in Wealth-tax assessment of present assessee, he added back market value of gold and silver ornaments in hands of assessee after excluding share of Shri Hukmichand. On appeal it was argued before AAC that value of remaining gold and silver ornaments was assessable in hands of smaller HUF and not in hands of bigger HUF which was assessee in present case. AAC accepted this contention stating that although partial partition had been derecognised after December, 1978, present partition had been affected on 8th Nov., 1978 and therefore, was valid partition in law. As regards share of Sri Hukmichand, it had been assessed in his hands in accordance with logic of decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Shantikumar Jaga bhai (1976) 105 ITR 795 (Guj), value of silver and gold ornaments could not be included in HUF wealth of present assessee. Revenue has done up in second appeal before us. 2. We have heard representatives of parties at length in this appeal. It appears that logic of so called acceptance of partial partition in Hindu Law is being extended to some uncontemplated limits. As Hindu Law of smritis stood, there was such thing as partial partition known to Hindus. expression of intention to separate was considered to be sufficient to effect partition between members f family. Earlier family was considered to be joint or separated for purpose of its income and wealth. only circumstance under which some of members of family which had effected partition still continued to remain joint were contemplated by Hindu Law on theory of reunion i.e. after there had been valid partition amongst members of HUF some of members chose to reunite and again formed joint family. other circumstance which did not result in partition was that if there had been partition between brothers, it did not necessarily mean partition between brother who got share and his own children. In such circumstance. share falling to each of brothers would belong to smaller HUFs of which respective brothers would be Kartas. This is kind of partition known to Hindu Law . Initially in Join family of Udayan Chinubhai, etc. vs. CIT, Gujarat (1967) 63 ITR 416 (SC), one C had filed suit for separate possession of his share against his wife and sons. suit was decreed by consent and ITO passed order holding that family should be deemed to have been partitioned and assessments subsequent to date could be made on two groups i.e., C and his five sons. Later ITO sought to make assessment on other parties, namely, his wife and son in status of HUF. Suprem Court held that once order of partition was recorded, it amounted to complete partition and property was held by HUF i.e., wife and sons of C as tenant in common and not as joint tenants. What we mean to say is that it had been held that original HUF ceased to exist altogether. However, in CIT v. Shanti kumar Jagabhai (1976) 105 ITR 795 (Guj) ( supra) where one son of deceased share in HUF on 19th Nov., 1956, deceased died on 1st Sept., 1961. By document dt. 11th Nov., 1961 major son again released his interest in favour of two other legatees of will executed by deceased and in same document, it had been recited that there was partial partition between mother and minor son and, thereafter, two became partners of said business. In asst. yr. 1963-64 and 1964-65 assessee family contended that there was partial partition of join family business and business should not be assessed in hands of HUF. It was held that as result of release deed dt. 10th Nov., 1956 executed by major son business thereafter belonged to deceased, his minor son and wife as deceased had .left will, notional partition should be deemed to have been taken place at time of his death and 1/3rd share on family business devolved under his will to three legatees namely, his wife and minor/major sons. As result of release deed share of major son went to mother and minor son in their separate individual capacity. But remaining 2/3rd share in family business continued to belong to joint family of mother and minor son. source mother had no right to demand partition, it was not open to her capacity as guardian to effect partition between herself and son. Therefore, partition effected by document of 11th Nov., 1961 was not effective in law and smaller HUF consisting of widow and minor son continued to have 2/3rd interest whereas each of them, was individually entitled to 1/6th share in remaining income from business. Further in CWT vs. M.L. Ramchandra Setty and Sons (1979) 116 ITR 545 (Kar), it was held that it is open to members of HUF to agree to enter into partial partition to hold properties which were subject matter of such partial partition as tenants-in-common while continuing to be joint in respect of other properties of family, Thus different conception of partition has been taken in tax laws and administered in country. However, we are not inclined to extend theory of partial partition beyond what it has been recognised in decided cases because apart from theses cases, Hindu law did not contemplate partial partition on manner in which assessee now wants us to hold. All that can be said for assessee is that remaining property after excluding jewellery and diamonds in question still continued to belong to its family. But it is rather difficult to hod that there was another smaller HUF within its family which one was owner of jewellery minus portion given to Shaktikumar. Such HUF within HUF has not been recognised in any of decided cases so far. All that Gujarat High Court in (1976) 105 ITR 795 (Guj) (supra) held that relinquishment by major son did not amount to complete disruption of family. But this proposition itself is not being endorsed by assessee whose contention is that it belonged to another HUF. Gujarat High Court decision actually was that it continued to belong to original HUF less person who had separated. In other words, no two separate HUFs, i,e. HUF within HUF were recognised even by Gujarat High Court. However, in view of fact that partial partition of property has been recognised IT It laws, we are constrained to hold that gold and diamonds in question had been partitioned and they therefore, ceased to belong to present HUF. Consequently, in view of Supreme Court decision in (1967) 63 ITR 416 (SC) and Karnataka High Court decision in (1979) 116 ITR 545 (Kar) (supra) all jewellery belonging to bigger HUF should be deemed to have been partitioned between his various members and liability should be included in their net wealth as such. WTO shall therefore, be at liberty to include jewellery in individual assessments of other members of family within meaning of Explanation (2) to s. 17A(4) of WT Act, 1957. Subject to this observation, departmental appeals shall fail and are hereby dismissed as such. 13th Jan., 1986 A. Kalyansundharam, A.M I endorse view expressed by my ld. Brother on exclusion of partitioned jewellery from wealth of assessee HUF. However I wish to add my own views also. 2. assessee, who is before us is HUF which has partially partitioned one of properties belonging to it, namely jewellery. point i n consideration before us is limited issue as to whether jewellery so partitioned should been included in hands of this HUF, who is assessee before us or not. Once asset has been partitioned by HUF it goes out of hands of HUF and cannot be included at all, in its hands. grievance of Department in this case is that though one of members had taken his share in jewellery, but other members remained joint, this leads to creation of another smaller HUF within bigger HUF and therefore, it has to be held that there was no partition at all. Department is not disputing fact that partial partion was recognised under s. 171(2) of IT Act. grievance of Department is that AAC has held excluding member, who had taken away his share in jewellery in other members could constitute smaller HUF, which according to Department is that AAC has held excluding member, which had taken away his share in jewellery and other members could constitute smaller HUF, which according to Department, is not at all justified and therefore, entire asset should be included in hands of bigger HUF. What we are concerned is about factum of partial partition by bigger HUF and its consequent effect on bigger HUF for wealth tax purposes. Once partial partition has been accepted, logical consequence is exclusion of property from hands of HUF for wealth tax purposes. extraneous conditions such as some members of HUF holding property jointly and claiming it to be small HUF are not all relevant for deciding issue in case of present assessee. claim made by such issue in case of present assessee. claim made by such members has to be considered by Department when claim is so made. It would not be proper to consider and decide issue which is not subject- matter of appeal of fear of some members making claim of smaller HUF and for reason that such submission was made by assessee before AAC. Since we are not concerned about whether there could be multiple small HUFs within bigger HUFs or not, at this juncture deciding this issue in present appeal, to my mind, appears to be unnecessary though this issue is realised by Department and may be said to arise out of order of AAC but is not at all relevant to issue of inclusion or exclusion of item partially partitioned from wealth of assessee HUF and therefore to my mind observation made by my ld. Brother should not be treated as binding on other members of HUF or Department in other case, if any, especially when other member assessees are not in appeal before us. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. BHANWARLAL