Narayana Pai, J.—The question referred in this case pursuant to an order made by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, is :

"Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal, it is justified in law, in holding that profit of Rs. 12,959,09 in the cloth transaction, under the contract dated December 3, 1958, entered by the assessee with Messrs. Suratram Gopaldas, firm of Bombay was the profit in the hands of the Hindu undivided family ?"

2. The assessee, Seth Chunilal Parsram was being assessed in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three minor sons, the principal source of whose income was money-lending business. Although there was at one stage an attempt by the assessee to give it the character of a separate business carried on by him with money borrowed from the family, to the relevant details of which we shall refer presently, there is no dispute at present that the money-lending business was and continued to be, right up to the year relevant to the assessment now under reference, joint family business. The cloth business mentioned in the question was carried on by the assessee under or pursuant to a co