RAM SWARUP, J.M.: ORDER These are two cross appeals-one by assessee and other by Department-and they are directed against order of learned CIT (A) dt. 31st Oct., 1986 for asst. yr. 1981-82. assessee in his appeal has taken following grounds: "The WTO was bound under s. 7(4) to adopt value of Neelbagh Palace at Rs. 3,00,000 being value adopted by Settlement Commission on 31st March, 1971." revenue has following objections: "1. learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate ITO's viewpoint that decision of Settlement Commission was binding only for year(s) covered by Settlement Application under s. 245C. 2. learned CIT(A) was not justified on facts of case and in law in following orders of Settlement Commission for earlier year without discussing issue on merits. 3. learned CIT(A) was not justified on facts of case in allowing liability of Rs. 5,82,377 under head 'Balrampur Tenantry War Loan'. 4. Issue in question being pending before Supreme Court of India, learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that 1/6th wealth was deductible as belonging to Sri D.P. Singh in his individual capacity." 2 . On scrutiny, WTO found that assessee had shown value of Neelbagh Palace at Rs. 3 lakhs. assessee requested WTO to accept value as property was purely residential according to s. 7(4) of WT Act, 1957 ('the Act'). He informed value accepted for asst. yr. 1971-72 was Rs. 3 lakhs. WTO was of view that valuation shown by assessee did not appear to be reasonable in view of fact that Palace was quite big and spacious, besides having land around it. He further, wrote in his order, exact area of land around Palace was not known to representative of assessee. He considered 5 acres of land, of Palace, could not be treated as appurtenant land. He valued said land at Rs. 1 lakh. He added same in valuing property at Neelbagh Palace. learned CIT (A) confirmed order of WTO. He opined that large chunk of loan appurtenant of land had to be excluded apart from purview of s. 7(4) of Act. 3. learned counsel for assessee argued that when Settlement Commission had determined value of Neelbagh Palace along with land at Rs. 3 lakhs for asst. yr. 1971-72, learned lower authorities should have accepted same under s. 7(4) of Act. He pointed out that in Estate Duty Order of previous Karta of assessee-family, who died on 30th June, 1964, value of said Palace was estimated at Rs. 3,77,900. In that Estate Duty Order he pointed out impugned chunk of lawn, was considered. He further submitted that learned ITAT, against order of Asstt. CED had reduced value of Palace along with lawn at Rs. 1,84,000. He drew our attention to order of Settlement Commission at paras 20.1, 20.2 and 20.3 dealing with impugned property. These paras run as under: "20.1 In estate duty case of previous 'Karta' of HUF, Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh, who died on 30th June, 1964, value of this Palace was placed at Rs. 3,77,900 by Asstt. CED. Its value was reduced to Rs. 1,84,000 in these proceedings by Tribunal. We are informed that Department is in reference before High Court against Tribunal's order. Asst. yr. Value Asst. yr. Value Rs. Rs. 1970-71 3,00,000 1976-77 3,00,000 1971-72 3,00,000 1977-78 3,00,000 1972-73 3,00,000 1978-79 3,00,000 1973-74 3,00,000 1979-80 3,00,000 1975-76 3,00,000 20.2 It may be noted here that we have determined value of property for asst. yr. 1970-71 at Rs. 3,00,000 and we take it at this figure for asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1980-81 under provisions of s. 7(4)." 4. learned counsel for assessee suggested that learned lower authorities were bound as per law to accept valuation which was adopted for asst. yr. 1971-72. 5. We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for assessee. From orders of Asstt. CED and Settlement Commission, we are satisfied that chunk of land which was separately assessed by WTO was considered as part of Neelbagh Palace, in valuation. Tribunal while estimating valuation, against valuation of Asstt. Controller at Rs. 1,84,000 had considered said portion of land. However, we are not inclined to accept submissions of learned counsel for assessee that valuation adopted by Settlement Commission for asst. yr. 1971-72 should also be adopted for year 1981-82. value which was adopted by learned ITAT in 1964 was Rs. 1,84,000. Even if moderate rate of increase during gap of about 10 years in valuing property @ 10 per cent is adopted, value for 1981 could come to Rs. 4,05,418. We find that WTO had added Rs. 1 lakh with Rs. 3,00,000 declared by assessee is value of property estimating total value of Rs. 4 lakh. We, therefore, decline to interfere and confirm orders of lower authorities. learned counsel for assessee suggested that we must read s. 7(4) in manner that once assessment for asst. yr. 1971-72 had been completed, basis should be adopted under s. 7(4) for all subsequent years. He pointed out that use of assessment year in said sub-section indicates intention of legislature that assessment completed for assessment year commencing from 1st April, 1971 should be adopted as basis contemplated in s. 7(4) of Act. We are not inclined to accept suggested construction of learned counsel. There will be difficulties in following said suggestion. There may be cases where no assessment had been made for asst. yr. 1971-72 and in that case, if suggestion of learned counsel is accepted s. 7(4) will not be applicable and assessing WTO will not be able to value property on basis of s. 7(4) of Act. There may be other cases value property on basis of s. 7(4) of Act. There may be other cases where assessment had been completed without scrutiny, for asst. yr. 1971-72 and assets had been grossly undervalued and limitation for reopening assessments had expired. If suggestion of learned counsel is accepted then WTO will have to value assets on same amount grossly undervalued. These could not be intentions of legislature. learned counsel for assessee opined that if subsequent WTOs are at liberty to change value year after year for same assessment year, i.e., 1971-72 then main purpose of s. 7(4) of Act would be defeated. We cannot also accept this suggestion of learned counsel. If WTO had completed assessment for asst. yr. 1971-72 after due scrutiny, subsequent officer should follow same, and, in case if it is not followed then assessee may take up matter before Appellate Authorities. In our opinion, therefore, learned counsel for assessee's suggestive construction was not intention of legislature while it had enacted sub-s. 7(4) of Act. This will dispose of appeal of assessee which is dismissed. 6 . WTO refused claim of assessee to deduct 1/6th share belonging to Shri D.P. Singh (Ind.) from HUF's net asset. learned CIT(A) following decision of Settlement Commission directed WTO to deduct 1/6th share belonging to D.P. Singh. facts are not disputed. assessee in this case is HUF. It was assessed as such for all earlier assessment years. Family initially was consisted of Late Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh and his family (Late Maharaja was married to Smt. Raj Laxmi Kumari Devi), they were issueless. On 20th Feb., 1963 they adopted Shri Dharmendra Prasad Singh (D.P. Singh) into family and so from that date family was consisted of Late Maharaja, his wife and Shri D.P. Singh, present Karta. Late Maharaja died on 30th June 1964. assessee-HUF claimed that after death of Maharaja his share was devolved on his wife and D.P. Singh (Indv.) present Karta. Wife allowed her share to remain in HUF. Shri D.P. Singh was entitled to half of 1/3rd share in his individual capacity as per s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1957. It was claimed by assessee-HUF that by operation of law, D.P. Singh has overriding titled to this extent in HUF property. In income-tax proceedings for asst. yr. 1966-67, this issue was subject matter of ITAT. learned Tribunal after considering facts came into conclusion that case of CIT vs. Smt. Nagarathnamma (1970) 76 ITR 352 (Mys) is applicable in this case. In that case, it was held that deceased coparcener's interest shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession under Hindu Succession Act and not by survivorship. provisions are obviously mandatory and there is no suggestion that any option is left to coparceners or surviving female relation. Such case ordinarily, therefore, estate of HUF reduced interest of deceased alone shall devolved by survivorship in terms of s. 6 of Act. Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it may be stated, does not contemplate any partition factual or otherwise. learned Tribunal also considered s. 171 of IT Act and its interpretation by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Kallomal Tapeshwari Prasad (1972) UPTC 623. It was held by learned Court that estate of assessee-HUF, having been dismissed in terms of s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act 1956, but with regards which order accepting claim of partial partition has not been made, income from such property cannot be included in computation of income of HUF. 7 . Department had filed reference application against this order of Tribunal. same was rejected by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on basis of his own decision mentioned above. matter is now pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition. However, it was argued by learned counsel for assessee that even in absence of order under s. 171 in income-tax case we can decide this issue on basis of Mysore High Court in case of Smt. Nagarathnamma (supra) where almost identical issues had been decided. learned counsel for assessee drew our attention that Settlement Commission had dealt with matter and also considered fact that decision of Allahabad High Court in Kallomal Tapeshwari Prasad's case (supra) was reversed by Supreme Court. In spite o f fact settlement commission has followed decision of Smt. Nagarathnamma's case (supra). He also pointed out that Hon'ble Settlement Commission had found that decision of Mysore High Court mentioned above had not been superseded and accepted by Department and that case was applicable in all fours. 8 . We have considered submissions made by parties. We are 8 . We have considered submissions made by parties. We are unable to appreciate fact that in spite of reason, Mr. D.P. Singh allowed his property to remain merged with HUF property still claimed as his separate property to extent of 1/6th according to Hindu Succession Act. It is no doubt, he has got right according to Hindu Succession Act. But unless and otherwise he gets his property separated definitely it will remain as HUF property and should be assessed as such. Whether or not there was real partition in family to exclude any part of property from hands of HUF for taxation purpose, claim of partition shall have to be made otherwise it will be continued as HUF property if no claim is made and claim is not accepted. Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act itself suggests that share of coparcener will be determined on basis of deemed partition. If any body is claiming his share according to said section, he has to put claim of partition on basis of said section, he has to put claim of partition otherwise it will remain as HUF for taxation purposes. This was law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) vs. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 690 (SC). We feel decision of learned Mysore High Court has been impliedly superseded by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of above, we feel that WTO was justified in rejecting claim of assessee to exclude 1/6th share of Shri D.P. Singh from property. In result, order of learned CIT(A) on this point is set aside and that of WTO is restored. 9 . Another dispute is in regard to claim of liability was Tenantry War Loan. It was claimed by learned counsel for assessee that on instruction from Government this loan was raised from farmers. Bonds had been issued. After maturity of bonds, assessee received money from Government and it was now assessee's liability to pay back to farmers. He supported contention by producing copies of correspondences between Government and assessee. He also produced copy of Trust Deed where liability to this loan had been taken over by Trust. He submitted that loan had been sufficiently acknowledged by assessee by way of creation of such Trust Deed. WTO rejected claim of liability as according to him, amongst other reasons, loans were all barred by limitations. He raised following objections: 1. claim of creditor is barred by limitations. 2. Matter has become so old that there would hardly be new creditor who may be able to show relevant receipts. 3. There is big gap of about 40 years and there is no record available with assessee as regard to heirs of those creditors who are since died. 4. Trust Deed was written on 9th Jan., 1984 which is date subsequent to valuation date under consideration. On other hand, liability undertaken through Trust Deed referred to above is assessee's self imposed net wealth. sum of Rs. 5,82,377 representing so called Balrampur Tenantry War Loan was therefore being disallowed. 10. Going to facts of case, we feel we must hold that decision of WTO in this matter was proper. Loans were taken from farmers at about 40 years back. It was not known whether these liabilities had been individually acknowledged. Creation of trust does not hold assessee's case also. If liabilities had been taken over by trust, it could be liability of trust only, and not assessee. Moreover, trust was created in 1984, i.e. long after valuation date. In trust deed creditor-farmers were not parties. These could not be taken as acknowledgment to debts or liabilities. Moreover, trust was created in 1984, i.e. long after valuation date. We have doubt about legal enforceability of such agreement against assessee to constitute debt. 11. In view of this matter we set aside order of learned CIT(A) and restore order of WTO. appeal of Department is allowed. *** DHARMENDRA PRASAD SINGH v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER