( 1 ) PRIOR to 1955 Rai Bahadur Tunki Sah was the Karta of HUF comprising his wife Budhi Devi, his son Baidyanath Pd. Sah and his daughter-in-law Godawari Devi. On the demise of the Karta Rai Bahadur Tunki Sah in 1955, his son Baidyanath became the Karta of the HUF. The widow of the deceased Budhi Devi was entitled to a limited interest in the property under the provisions of the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937. However, on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 her limited interest turned into an absolute one and she acquired absolute ownership rights under Section 14 (1 of the said Act. Budhi Devi died in 1960 or thereabout and her share in the properly was inherited by her only son Baidyanath. Baidyanath and his wife Godawari Devi adopted Nand Ktimar as their son sometime in 1961. Thereafter, on 3/5/19699 Baidyanath executed a registered gift deed in respect of his share in the property which he had inherited from his mother to his adopted son Nand Kumar which gift was accepted by the Gift Tax Officer, who recovered gift tax thereon. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the income tax assessment years 1972-73. 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. It appears that in the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 the Income Tax Officer while assessing the HUF and Nand Kumar accepted the contention of the assessee that only 50 per cent of the income from the property and business was assessable in the hands of the HUF and the balance in the hands of the adopted son Nand Kumar. However, in the subsequent assessment years the Income Tax Officer rejected the assessees contention that the income was liable to be divided 50 : 50 between the HUF and the adopted son Nand Kumar for determining the tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and instead assessed the entire income as income of HUF making a protective assessment of 50 per cent of the income in the hands of the adopted son Nand Kumar as individual. This order was questioned in appeal, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal of the HUF upholding the view taken by the Income Tax Officer. The adopted son Nand Ktimar had also filed separate appeals and they too were rejected following the view taken in the appeals preferred by the HUF. In further appeal in regard to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 the Income Tax Appellate tribunal upheld the assessees contention that the income was divisible in equal shares and that the HUF could be assessed for 50 per cent of the income only leaving the balance 50 per cent tobe assessed as income in the hands of the individual i. e. adopted son Nand Kumar. For the subsequent years also the tribunal in separate appeals passed similar orders. The appeals of Nand Kumar were also similarly accepted by the tribunal. The question came to be referred to the High court in regard to the order passed by the tribunal in the appeals referable to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Similar orders came to be passed in regard to the subsequent assessment years. So also orders to the same effect were passed in the case of the adopted son Nand Kumar in regard to the assessment years 1972- 73 to 1975-76. On a reference to the High court in the case of the HUF as well as the individual Nand Kumar the High court reversed the view taken by the tribunal and upheld the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In other words, the High court upheld the contention urged by the Revenue

( 2 ) THE decision turns on the language of Section 171 of the IT Act. Sub- section (1 of Section 171 in terms provides that a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to continue to be a Hindu Undivided Family, except where and insofar as a finding of partition has been given under this section in respect of the Hindu Undivided Family. On a plain reading of this Ss. it becomes clear that a Hindu family which is assessed as undivided has for the purposes of the Act to be deemed to