MALIK, CJ.:- A number of references, some under the Income-tax Act and others under the Excess Profits Tax Act, have been lumped up together and numbered as above. During the course of argument, with the consent of learned counsel, we found it necessary to number the cases separately and Miscellaneous Case No.139 of 1948, was confined only to the reference under S.66 (1), Income-tax Act in Reference Application No.226 of 1947-48 before the appellate Tribunal, which related to the income of the firm Harishankar Gopal Hari.

2. The question referred to us in this reference is as follows:

"Whether in the circumstances of the case, the income of Gopal Hari, a minor member of the Hindu undivided family of Sir Padampat Singhania arising from Share and interest on deposits in the firm of M/S.Hari Shankar Gopal Hari represents the income of the Hindu undivided family liable to assessment in the hands of Sir Padampat Singhania as its Karta?"

The facts as they appear from the Statement of the Case and the Appellate Order of the Tribunal are that there is a J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co., Ltd., at Kanpur. The sole selling agency of the products of the J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., (hereafter called the Company) was held by Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat. The partners of this registered firm were Sir Padampat Singhania, Lala Kailashpat Singhania, Lala Lakshmipat Singhania, each holding a 5 annas share, and the mother of the three Singhania brothers mentioned above, who had a one anna share. The three brothers were separate and were being separately assessed. The sole selling agency contract terminated and a new firm Harishankar Gopal Hari was registered and it entered into a contract with the Company and became its sole selling agent. The constitution of this firm is as follows:

"1. Radhakishan Singhania ... 0-1-0.

2. P.D. Chandrana ... 0-0-6.

3. Gopikrishan Jaipuria ... 0-0-6.

4. Harishankar, minor son of L. Lakshmipat Singhania ... 0-4-9.

5. Gopal Hari, minor son of Sir Padampat Singhania ... 0-4-6.

6. Vijaipat, minor son of L. Kailashpat Singhania . ... 0-4-9."

As shown above, the last three were minors and were aged 10, 10 and 4 years respectively in the year 1947 when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made the assessment, and were the sons of L. Lakshmipat Singhania, Sir Padampat Singhania and L. Kailashpat Singhania, who were partners of the firm Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat. We do not know anything about the other three Evidently they were strangers.

3. The facts found and not disputed are as follows:

1. That the sole selling agency contract was with Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat;

2. That the partners in the firm were the fathers of the three minors, who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership of the firm Harishankar Gopal Hari;

3. That on termination of the sole selling agency contract of Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat the Company entered into a fresh contract with the firm Harishankar Gopal Hari;

4. That in this firm of Harishankar Gopal Hari 14 annas Shares were held by the three minors who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership in Harishankar Gopal Hari;

5. That the three minors are members of the joint Hindu family with their respective fathers, who are separate inter se; and lastly,

6. That there was no evidence to prove that the minors had any separate funds of their own which they might have invested in the business.

4. The question in this reference is whether on those facts it could be found that the income of Gopal Hari minor, son of Sir Padampat Singhania, was really the income of the joint family and could be assessed as such in the hands of Sir Padampat Singhania as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family.

5. The law is now well settled that it is open to a member of a Hindu undivided family to carry on a business and there is no presumption that any such business belongs to the joint family (see - Annamalai Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1929 PC 1 (A). In that case a member of a joint fa