Self-acquired property income remained individual income because declaration alone did not create Hindu undivided family ownership.

Income from self-acquired property does not become Hindu undivided family income merely because the owner declares it to be joint family property if he retains ownership and control over the income. Where the property was not joint family property in origin, the doctrine of blending does not alter its taxable character, and the mere presence of a wife and daughter does not by itself create an HUF for tax purposes. The income from Kathoke Lodge was therefore taxable as the assessee's individual income, not as HUF income.

---

---

Issues: Whether the income from Kathoke Lodge, after the assessee's declaration impressing it with the character of joint family property, was assessable as the income of a Hindu undivided family or as the assessee's individual income.

Analysis: The property was originally the assessee's self-acquired property. The declaration did not alter the essential character of the assessee's rights so as to divest him of ownership or control over the income. The family consisted only of the assessee, his wife and daughter, and the Court applied the principle that the mere existence of a wife or daughter does not convert income into that of a Hindu undivided family. The Court distinguished cases where property was already joint family property and remained so in the hands of a sole coparcener. Here, the property was not joint family property in origin, and the doctrine of blending did not change the income's taxable character.

Conclusion: The income from Kathoke Lodge was not assessable as Hindu undivided family income and was taxable in the assessee's hands as individual income.

---