Property character governs HUF or individual tax status; special revisional limitation stands on its own scheme.

For tax classification, the source and character of property determine whether assets are assessable as Hindu undivided family property or individual property. Lands received from the father were treated as family property, and an earlier assessment in individual status did not prevent correction of the legal status later; the property inherited from the uncle and the remaining assets retained their individual character. On limitation, the special revisional provision was governed by its own limitation structure, so the limitation period applicable to general assessment or escape-tax proceedings could not be imported. The revisional order was therefore not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lands obtained from the father were assessable in the status of a Hindu undivided family, while the remaining properties including the land inherited from the uncle were assessable in the status of an individual; (ii) Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under the special revisional provision of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the lands obtained from the father were assessable in the status of a Hindu undivided family, while the remaining properties including the land inherited from the uncle were assessable in the status of an individual.

Analysis: The status of the assessee for tax purposes had to be determined by the source and character of the properties. The lands obtained from the father constituted family property, and the fact that they had earlier been assessed in the individual status did not prevent the assessee from asserting the correct legal status when the issue arose. The remaining properties, including the land inherited from the uncle, retained their individual character.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family in respect of 14.80 ordinary acres of land received from his father, and as an individual in respect of the remaining properties.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under the special revisional provision of the Act.

Analysis: The special revisional provision contained its own limitation structure, and there was no basis to import the limitation period applicable to the general assessment or escape-tax provisions. The earlier sales tax decision relied upon turned on different facts and a different statutory scheme, and could not govern the present revisional power.

Conclusion: The revisional order was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only on the status issue, resulting in separate assessments for family and individual properties, while the limitation challenge failed and the remaining matters stood rejected or remitted for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: For income-tax purposes, the character and source of the property determine whether it is assessable as HUF or individual property, and a mistaken earlier assessment in one status does not preclude correction at the proper stage; a special revisional limitation provision is not displaced by a different limitation period applicable to assessment proceedings under the same Act.

---