JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - The two questions of law referred to this Court by the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, are as follows: (1) Whether in the fads and circumstances of the case the Assistant Collector of Agricultural income tax was justified in determining the status as that of an 'association of individuals'. (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assistant Collector is justified in sustaining the assessment of the entire income of the erstwhile joint family property in the hands of the Petitioner. 2. The admitted facts are as follows. Sri Manmatha Nath Deb and his brother Mano Ranjan Deb constituted a Hindu undivided Family having extensive landed properties in Balasore district. The kartha was Sri Manmatha Nath Deb Formerly they were assessed as a Hindu undivided family, but during the assessment year 1952-53 Sri Manmatha Nath Deb, while submitting his returns alleged that there was a division of status between the two brothers each being entitled to 8 annas share out of the total income and that his income should therefore be deemed to be half of the total Income. But it was admitted that there was no partition by metes and bounds of the joint family property and that the management continued under Manmath Nath Deb. Hence the Agricultural income tax Officer passed an order of assessment treating the disrupted joint family as an "association of individuals". On appeal and revision the superior Agricultural income tax authorities confirmed this order relying mainly on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhotalal Mohanlal and Ors. (1940) 8 I.T.R 114. In the meantime, Manmath Nath Deb died leaving his son Nandadulal Deb (Petitioner) to succeed him. The Member, Board of Revenue, also took the same view as the lower authority, but as desired by the Petitioner, has referred the aforesaid two questions of law to this Court, u/s 29(2) of the Orissa Agricultural income tax Act. 3. Clause (1) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Orissa Agricultural income tax: Act, 1947, defines the expression "person" as follows: (1) 'person' means any individual. 3. Clause (1) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Orissa Agricultural income tax: Act, 1947, defines the expression "person" as follows: (1) 'person' means any individual. Or association of individuals, owning or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for big own benefit and partly for another, either as owner, trustee, receiver, common manager, administrator or executor, or in any capacity recognised by law and includes a Hindu undivided family, firm, company and the Ruler of an Indian State. The expression 'Hindu Undivided Family' has not been expressly defined anywhere in tile Act. Hence the meaning given to that expression in the general Hindu Law would prevail. After the severance of the joint family status by ascertainment of the shares, a Hindu joint family is disrupted even though there may not be actual partition by metes and bounds of the joint family property. After such division of status however, the property may remain under the management of one of the divided coparceners. In such a case the Agricultural income tax Officer had no other alternative but to assess them as an "association of individuals" as mentioned in the definition of the expression "person" as given in Clause (1) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Orissa Agricultural income tax Act. 4. In this connection it will be useful to see the corresponding provision in the Indian income tax Act. In the definition Section 2(9) of that Act the expression "person" was not defined exhaustively as in the Orissa Agricultural income tax Act, but there was only an inclusive definition as follows: 2(9) 'Person' includes a Hindu undivided, family and a local authority. The charging section (Section 3) as follows: 3. Where any Central Act enacts that income tax shall be charged for any year at any rate or rates tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every individual, Hindu undivided family, company or local authority, and of every firm and other associations of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually. There was some divergence of view as to whether after the disruption of the joint family by ascertainment of shares but prior to the actual partition of the properties by metes and bounds, the family may be assessed as a Hindu undivided family or as an association of individuals. Section 25-A of the Income Tax Act solved this difficulty beyond any doubt by saying that where a partition had taken place by metes and bounds, the income tax Officer after making such enquiry as required under that section could pass an order to that effect. Sub-section (3) of Section 25-A is as follows: (3) Where such an order has not been passed in respect of a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided, such family shall be deemed for the purpose of this Act to continue to be a Hindu undivided family. This sub-section thus created an artificial definition of the expression 'Hindu undivided family' in direct contravention of the meaning given to that expression under the general Hindu law. Hence, under the Indian Income Tax Act by virtue of this artificial definition assessment should be made as an Hindu undivided family even though there was disruption of status and no partition by metes and bounds had taken place. If in the Orissa Agricultural income tax also the intention was to follow the same mode of assessment, a similar provision would have been made in that Act. Section 25-A of the income tax Act was in existence long before the Orissa Agricultural income tax Act was enacted and the omission to insert a similar provision in the latter Act must lead to a reasonable inference that the Legislature did not intend to give such an artificial definition to the expression 'Hindu undivided family'. There is no other provision either in the Orissa Agricultural income tax Act or in the Rules framed thereunder from which an artificial construction, as mentioned in Section 25-A(3) of the income tax Act can be adopted for the expression 'Hindu undivided family' by necessary implication. Rule 20 of the Orissa Agricultural income tax Rules deals with a case where partition takes place after the date of assessment as a Hindu undivided family. That Rule says that the separated member shall be jointly and severally liable. Rule 20 of the Orissa Agricultural income tax Rules deals with a case where partition takes place after the date of assessment as a Hindu undivided family. That Rule says that the separated member shall be jointly and severally liable. There is absolutely no provision anywhere, either in the Act or in the Rules, to cover a case like the present one, namely disruption of a Hindu undivided family by ascertainment of shares without partition by metes and bounds. In such a family co-sharer who manages the joint property manages it partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of the other sharers, and the divided family becomes nothing else but an association of individuals. 5. Mr. Bhuyan has not been able to cite any authority in support of his contention that even after such disruption the family should be as a Hindu undivided family on the analogy of Section 25-A(3) of the income tax Act. I would therefore answer both the questions in the affirmative. The reference is disposed of accordingly, with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only). Das, J. 6. I agree.