RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) ON 16-3-1972 there was a partition between the assessee and his son. Again a partition was made by the assessee between himself, his wife and minor unmarricd daughter, by a deed dated 4-3-1978 (Annexure-D ). This partition was recognised by the Income Tax Officer under section 171 of the Income Tax Act and assessment was made in the status of Hindu Undivided family, though the return was filed as individual. The commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act, as in his opinion the order of the Income Tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessce filed his objections to the said notice. After considering the same, the commissioner made an order holding that the partition in the joint family can be brought about only by co-parceners, and the female members, though entitled to shares on partition, cannot claim partition as of right according to Hindu law, and in that view of the matter cancelled the order made under Section 171 of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the asscssee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order made by the Commissioner. Thereafter, the assessec sought for a reference and the following question of law has been referred for our opinion: whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partition amongst the asscssee, his wife and his unmarried daughter was not valid and thus the order of the Income-tax officer made under Section 171 recognising the partition is not valid? the question is, when there is single coparcener with other female members in his family, whether under Hindu Law there could be partition between himself and other female members. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that even assuming that there could be no partition between such a coparcener and other female members in the family, the partition deed could be treated either as a family arrangement or as a gift. Inasmuch as the question arose out of an order made under Section 171 of the Act, which pertains to the recognisation of the partition, the question, whether the document could be treated either as a family arrangement or as a gift, does not rise for consideration at all. Inasmuch as the question arose out of an order made under Section 171 of the Act, which pertains to the recognisation of the partition, the question, whether the document could be treated either as a family arrangement or as a gift, does not rise for consideration at all. Moreover, such a question has not been raised before any of the authorities below. Therefore, we decline to examine that aspect of the matter. ( 2 ) SO far as the question referred to us is concerned, the matter is self evident. A sole coparcener cannot divide the property with himself or grant any share in the property. In the absence of more than one coparcener, partition is impossible. The grant of any share in the property by the sole surviving male member of the Hindu undivided family to any other family member, could be only in the nature of settlement of the property upon them in lieu of their right of maintenance and cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to be partition of the property amongst them. Therefore, no partition could have taken place in such an event. Our view is supported by two decisions, one in the case of t. G. R. Raman v C. I. T. (140 ITR 876) and the other in the case of Sat Pal Bansal v C. I. T. (162 itr 582), which is a Full Bench decision of the punjab and Haryana High Court, which overruled the earlier decision of the same Court. ( 3 ) IN this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the asscssee. --- *** --- .