Y.V.CHANDRACHUD, J.

(1) THE appellant. Surjit Lal Chhabda, had three sources of income. He had a share in the profits of two partnership firms, he received interest from bank accounts and he received rent from an immovable property called "Kathoke Lodge". These were his self-acquired properties and until the assessment year 1956-57, he used to be assessed as an individual in respect of the income thereof. On 26/01/1956 he made a sworn declaration before a Presidency Magistrate in Bombay that he had thrown the property Kathoke Lodge into the family hotchpot in order to impress that property with the character of joint family property and that he would be holding that property as the karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife and one child. That child was an unmarried daughter.

(2) IN the assessment proceedings for 1957-58, the appellant contended that since he had abandoned all separate claims to Kathoke Lodge, the income which he received from that property should be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The income-tax authorities and the Income-tax Appellate tribunal rejected that contention for varying reasons. The Income-tax Officer held that in the absence of a nucleus of joint family property, there was nothing with which the appellant could mingle his separate property and secondly, that there could not be a Hindu undivided family without there being undivided family property. The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who differed from the Income-tax Officer on both the points but dismissed the appeal on two other grounds. The A. A. C. held that even after the declaration, the appellant was dealing with the income of Kathoke Lodge in the same way as before which showed that the declaration was not acted upon and secondly, that even assuming that the property was thrown into the common stock and was therefore joint family property, the income from that property could still be taxed in the appellants hands as he was the sole male member of the family. The tribunal accepted the declaration as genuine and differed from the A. A. C.s finding that it was not acted upon. The appellant, according to the tribunal, was the karta of the joint Hindu family and it was irrelevant as to how he dealt with joint family income. The tribunal however held that though the appellant had invested his separate property with the character of joint family property, he being a sole surviving coparcener continued to have the same absolute and unrestricted interest to the property as before and therefore, in law, the property had to be treated as his separate property.

(3) THE appellant moved the tribunal for referring five questions to the High court while the respondent applied for the reference of one other question. The tribunal referred the following question only for the opinion of the Bombay High court under S. 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922:

WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from property known as Kathoke Lodge was to be assessed separately as the income of the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was the karta ?

(4) IN the High court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that it is open to a male member of a joint Hindu family to convert his self-acquired property into joint family property by throwing it into the common hotchpot; that for effectuating this purpose it is neither necessary that there should be an ancestral or joint family nucleus nor that there should be more than one male in the joint family; and since Kathoke Lodge was impressed with the character of joint family property, its income belonged to the joint Hindu family of which the appellant was the karta, the other members being his wife and unmarried daughter.

(5) ON the other hand. the department contended that it was contrary to the basic concept of a Hindu undivided family that a single male along with