RATNAM J.

These tax cases are dealt with together, as at the instance of the Revenue, a common question has been referred for the opinion of this court in all those cases, though the assessees, which are HUFs, and the assessment years, are different. While T.Cs. Nos. 3 to 7 of 1980 relate to a HUF, which is a partner in the firm of M/s. Bapalal and Company, represented by its karta, Sri Suresh B. Mehta, for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73, T.Cs. Nos. 637 of 1978 and 638 of 1978 are concerned with another HUF, which is also a partner in the firm of M/s. Bapalal & Co., represented by its karta, Sri Surendra Manilal Mehta, in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. For the assessment year 1968-69, though the assessee in T.Cs. Nos. 3 to 7 of 1980 originally declared a certain income, a revised return was subsequently filed showing a reduced income and claiming that the difference of Rs. 12, 000 being the salary received by Shri Suresh B. Mehta in his individual capacity should be excluded in computing the income of the HUF. Similar claims were made for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. The ITO was of the opinion that the income of Rs. 12, 000 was