Hindu undivided family status prevails for partitioned lands and related income, while remand prevents merger from binding later reassessment.

Property received on partition by a coparcener is treated as joint family property where he continues to represent the family unit, and income-derived acquisitions in his own name or benami names retain that character. Lands inherited from the father also fall within the Hindu undivided family, while only the share from the grandmother is treated as individual property. Settlements made by the assessee in favour of minor daughters were not clubbable under section 9(2) because that provision applies only to individual assessments, not to assessments on a Hindu undivided family. After remand, the Tribunal could independently decide the reassessment issues, as merger did not make the Commissioner's earlier findings final.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether lands obtained by partition and later acquisitions out of their income were assessable in the status of a Hindu undivided family or in the status of an individual; (ii) whether lands settled on the assessee's minor daughters could be clubbed under section 9(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act; and (iii) whether, after remand, the Commissioner's earlier findings had become final so as to bind the Tribunal by merger.

Issue (i): Whether lands obtained by partition and later acquisitions out of their income were assessable in the status of a Hindu undivided family or in the status of an individual.

Analysis: The properties were originally ancestral. When the assessee received a share on partition, he took it as a coparcener representing the family unit consisting of himself, his wife and minor daughters. The partitioned lands therefore retained their joint family character in his hands. Property later acquired from the income of those lands, whether in his own name or in benami names, likewise belonged to the family. Lands inherited from the father also formed part of the joint family property, while only the share derived from the grandmother devolved on the assessee individually.

Conclusion: The assessment was rightly made substantially in the status of a Hindu undivided family, except for the limited individual share inherited from the grandmother.

Issue (ii): Whether lands settled on the assessee's minor daughters could be clubbed under section 9(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act.

Analysis: Section 9(2) applies where the assessment is made on the father in his individual capacity. Once the assessment is on the Hindu undivided family, the provision has no application. The settlements in favour of the minor daughters were made by the assessee in his capacity as karta and could not be treated as his personal disposals for clubbing purposes.

Conclusion: The minors' lands could not be clubbed under section 9(2) and were rightly excluded from the family assessment.

Issue (iii): Whether, after remand, the Commissioner's earlier findings had become final so as to bind the Tribunal by merger.

Analysis: A fresh assessment made after remand gives rise to a fresh appellate challenge, and the Tribunal is entitled to decide all issues arising in that appeal. The theory of merger does not apply where the later assessment order is passed pursuant to a remand and is a distinct order from the earlier one considered by the Commissioner. The Tribunal was therefore competent to independently examine the status and clubbing questions.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's earlier observations did not bar the Tribunal from deciding the issues afresh.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's revisions failed on all substantial questions, and the Tribunal's treatment of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family, with exclusion of the minors' properties and rejection of merger, stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Property received on partition by a coparcener is treated as joint family property in the hands of the family unit consisting of himself, his wife and minor children, and section 9(2) cannot be applied where the assessment is not on the individual but on the Hindu undivided family; findings in an earlier remand order do not attain finality so as to bind the Tribunal in a fresh appeal against the reassessment.

---