Court rules agricultural lands and income as individual properties, not family assets. Partition principle under Hindu law applied.

The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the agricultural lands and accumulated income were the individual properties of the karta and not of the Hindu undivided family as a whole. The court found that the assets had been divided among family members, and the income had not been reintegrated into the joint family fund. It was established that the partitioned assets had become the absolute individual properties of the members, retaining their individual character. The court upheld the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the properties belonged to the karta individually, based on principles of partition and ownership under Hindu law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Determination of ownership of agricultural lands and accumulated income after partition of Hindu undivided family.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a question of law arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the ownership of agricultural lands and accumulated income following a partial partition of a Hindu undivided family. The main issue was whether the properties belonged to an individual or to the Hindu undivided family. The family consisted of the karta, his wife, sons, and daughters, who had divided the agricultural lands and income amongst themselves. The Tribunal had to decide if these assets remained individual properties or continued to be part of the family's joint ownership.

The Wealth-tax Officer initially held that the properties belonged to the karta individually, citing Mulla's Hindu Law, which states that upon partition, members hold their shares as separate property. The Officer also noted that the wife had received her share in the partition, indicating separation. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner overturned this decision, referencing a Supreme Court case. The Revenue then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which disagreed with the Commissioner's decision and upheld the Wealth-tax Officer's view that the properties were individual assets of the karta.

In the final judgment, the court considered that the assets had been divided among the family members, and the income had not been reintegrated into the joint family fund. It was established that the wife and minor daughters had formed a Hindu undivided family for income from other sources, but the partitioned assets had become the absolute individual properties of the members. Any property received by the members on partition retained its individual character. The court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in determining that the agricultural lands and accumulated income were the individual properties of the karta and not of the Hindu undivided family as a whole.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, affirming that the properties in question were rightfully considered the individual assets of the karta, based on the principles of partition and ownership under Hindu law.

---