Individual income prevails where no clear evidence shows a new firm was run for the Hindu undivided family.

A partner's share in the profits of a new firm was treated as individual income rather than Hindu undivided family income because the partnership deed did not show that he entered the firm as karta, Hindu law does not presume joint family ownership merely from managerial status, and his income-tax returns consistently treated the receipts as personal income. Later inconsistent declarations and the fact that the firm had borrowed from another concern with family capital participation were insufficient to prove that family funds were contributed or that the income was unequivocally blended with joint family property. The presumption of individual ownership was therefore not rebutted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's share in the profits of the fourth firm was assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family or as the assessee's individual income, and whether the share income was thrown into the family hotchpot.

Analysis: The partnership deed contained no express indication that the assessee entered the fourth firm as karta of the Hindu undivided family. The firm was a new business started after partition, and Hindu law does not raise a presumption that a business standing in a member's name is joint family property merely because he is the manager of the family. The assessee's conduct in the income-tax returns showed the income from the fourth firm as individual income for several years, and the later inconsistent declarations did not establish a clear family claim. The fact that the firm borrowed funds from another firm in which the assessees had family capital participation did not prove that the assessees had indirectly contributed family funds to the fourth firm. There was also no reliable evidence that the income from the fourth firm was unequivocally impressed with the character of joint family property and thrown into the common hotchpot.

Conclusion: The share income from the fourth firm was the individual income of each assessee, not the income of the Hindu undivided family, and the presumption of individual ownership was not rebutted. The question was answered in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express indication or reliable evidence showing that a new business was undertaken on behalf of the Hindu undivided family or that its income was clearly blended with family property, the presumption is that the partner acted in his individual capacity.

---