JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as " the Tribunal ") has referred the following question u/s 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"): " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the coparcenary interest of the deceased, which passed on his death, amounted to one-third share of the joint family property ? " 2. A few facts are necessary to be stated. Late Gopinath Sahu died on May 29, 1976. His wife and son belonged to a Hindu undivided family (" the HUF " for short). While alive, he had an interest in the joint family property. According to Section 39 of the Act, the value of such interest is equal to the share in the joint family property which would have been allotted to the deceased in a notional partition immediately before his death. The claim of the opposite party was that late Gopinath Sahu, in the case of a partition, would have been entitled only to 1/3rd share in the joint family property and his wife and son would have been entitled to 1/3rd share each. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty took the view that the notional share of late Gopinath Sahu would have been 1/2 and not 1/3rd. Therefore, he included the value of 1/2 of the joint family in the estate of the deceased for the purpose of assessment to estate duty, On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the said view. A second appeal was carried to the Tribunal. It was urged before it that the wife of late Gopinath Sahu not being a coparcener was not entitled to a share in the event of a partition between the coparceners. Therefore, the views expressed by the lower forums were correct. But the Tribunal differed from the views and considering the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came to hold that although a wife cannot demand a partition, yet, if a partition does take place amongst her husband and sons, she would be entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son and to hold and enjoy the same separately. The wife thus is a statutory heir specified in the First Schedule, although normally she is not a coparcener of a Hindu Mitakshara joint family. The wife thus is a statutory heir specified in the First Schedule, although normally she is not a coparcener of a Hindu Mitakshara joint family. Consequently, it held that the joint family property had to be divided into three equal shares and the 1/3rd share that would have been allotted to the late Gopinath Sahu in the event of a partition should have been taken into consideration by the lower forums for assessment to estate duty. 3. An identical question arose before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CED v. Estate of late Durga Prasad Beharilal [1919] 116 ITR 692. In that case, the deceased was a member of a Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself, his wife and three sons. On his death on November 18, 1970, in determining the net principal value of the estate of the deceased, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty determined the value of a residential house at Rs. 47,500 and allowed exemption in respect of l/5th share of the deceased u/s 33(1)(n) of the Act, but included the value of the balance 4/5ths share in the house of other coparceners. On appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty confirmed the same, but reduced the valuation of the house to Rs. 44,000. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the valuation of the house must be determined as if there was a partition just before the death of the deceased ; and as the value of one residential house was exempt u/s 33(1)(n) of the Act, the value of the entire house was not includible in the estate. On a reference, affirming the view of the Tribunal, it was held that the deceased had only 1/5th share in the undivided residential house which was exempt u/s 33(1)(n) of the Act and the value of the balance 4/5ths share of the house property could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the net principal value of the estate of the deceased inasmuch as the said 4/5ths share belonged to other coparceners. Therefore, the value of the entire house was liable to be excluded from the net principal value of the estate. 4. Therefore, the value of the entire house was liable to be excluded from the net principal value of the estate. 4. After hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties and in respectful agreement with the views of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, we hold that the Tribunal took a correct view of law to the effect that in the case of a notional partition, late Gopinath Sahu, his wife and son, being members of a Hindu undivided family, wore entitled to 1/3rd share each in the joint family property. We would accordingly answer the question in the affirmative and make no order as to costs. R.C. Patnaik, J. 5. I agree.