The intention of the acquirer and the principle of blending private properties with those of the family are crucial in determining the ownership of income and assets.

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 contract of 3rd December, 1958, between himself and a Bombay firm Suratram Gopaldas. It is also the concurrent finding of all the authorities including the Tribunal that no part of the family funds was utilized for carrying on the said cloth business. The said entire amount of Rs. 12,959.09 was received in one lump by the assessee from the Bombay firm along with their account statements, and was straightaway credited in one lump to the individual capital account in the name of the assessee in the books of account. The books of account are books maintained in connection with the family money-lending business. The individual capital account of the assessee referred to above, is a ledger title in the said account. The other members of the family are, as already stated, the minor sons of the assessee. It is not the case that they had anything to do with the cloth business or that the said cloth business may be regarded as a joint venture by all the members of the family.

3. So far, there is no controversy whatever. Prima facie, upon these facts, the ordinary presumptions of law as well as natural inference should be that in carrying on the cloth business, the assessee was acting in his individual capacity and on his own behalf. The normal presumption also is that an acquires for his own benefit such being human nature unless by reason of association, affection, long-standing conduct or practice, the acquisition by a member may be regarded as an acquisition made for and on behalf of the joint family.

4. It is, of course, open to a manager of a joint family either to work on behalf of the family, or carry on business on behalf of the family and also to blend with the joint family property moneys or properties which were undoubtedly his own separate properties. But that is a matter of proof depending upon close investigation of the facts. But one circumstance which may be regarded as a weighty consideration is the principle of Hindu low that, although an ancestral trade may be carried on by a manager so as to bind the interests of minor members also, it is not him to start a new business and expose the interests of the minor members to the risks and liabilities arising out of such new business.

5. Such being the general features of the admitted facts of this case and the principle of law which should normally apply thereto, the only question is whether on the said facts the Tribunal can be said to have come to a correct conclusion on an application of the correct principles of law.

6. The Tribunal accepted in toto the line of reasoning adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner adding thereto no fresh reasoning but only further emphasis. The background of the facts on which both depended may be briefly summarized as follows :

7. The assessee, it appears,