Joint family source rules and revisional power over protective assessments remain decisive in tax characterisation and revision.

Income traceable to joint family assets remains Hindu undivided family income even where the receipts arise from salary, commission and sitting fees for personal services, if the controlling shareholding and business nexus are rooted in family funds and assets. The commentary also notes that revisional power under section 33B extends to an independent protective assessment order because its character is not altered by the finality of a related individual assessment; the Commissioner may revise an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the salary, commission and sitting fees received by the assessee from the company constituted his individual income or the income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta. (ii) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the Income-tax Officer's order under section 33B in respect of the protective assessment, notwithstanding the finality of the individual assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the salary, commission and sitting fees received by the assessee from the company constituted his individual income or the income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta.

Analysis: The decisive consideration was the source of the funds used to acquire the controlling shares which formed the foundation of the assessee's remuneration. On the materials, the assessee had no personal source of funds for the share purchase, while the family was financially affluent. The family also had a close financial and business nexus with the company: it transferred business assets to the company, shares were later allotted for the assessee's promotional services, and dividends were credited to the family account. Income traceable to joint family assets retains the family character even if personal service is involved.

Conclusion: The receipts were held to be income of the Hindu undivided family, not the assessee's individual income, and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the Income-tax Officer's order under section 33B in respect of the protective assessment, notwithstanding the finality of the individual assessment.

Analysis: Section 33B empowers the Commissioner to examine any proceeding and revise an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue. The assessment order relating to the Hindu undivided family was an independent order, and the fact that it was protective, or that the individual assessment had already become final, did not take away the revisional power. The statutory language was wide enough to cover the impugned revision.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the assessment, and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in a manner adverse to the assessee, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Income arising from a source rooted in joint family assets is assessable as joint family income, and the Commissioner's revisional power under section 33B extends to an independent protective assessment order notwithstanding the finality of a related individual assessment.

---