Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This is a reference by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, and has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras. The assessees father, who died in 1921, was a partner in a money-lending firm carried on in the Federated Malay States. Notwithstanding the death of the assessees father, the business of the firm was carried on until 1928 when a Panchayat met to decide what was payable to the assessee and his brother on account of their fathers share, and the amount was fixed at $155,900. The assessee and his brother were minors, and so was Meyyappa. Ten years later, another Panchayat was formed for the purpose of deciding what interest should be paid on the $155,900 and the panchayatdars fixed the amount at $27,000. A sum of $182,900 representing principal and interest was paid to the assessee and his brother by way of a hundi on the 2nd April, 1938, the hundi being cashed on the 9th March, 1938. The assessees.share of the interest came to Rs. 21,153. The Income Tax Officer included this sum as income of the assessee for the year 1939-40 and the assessee objected. H