JUDGMENT Srinivasan, J :- The question referred to us is: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of 6,500 dollars was not capital accretion but business profits liable to income-taxe” The assessee was previously a partner in a firm called “ P. AR. N. AR. Malacca” . This firm was constituted, after the partition of a family of that name. That family was carrying on money-lending business. It purchased a house property and some shares. Whether or not these items of properties formed the stock-in-trade of the money-lending business carried on by that family prior to this partition is not very material now. The family became divided in 1949. Thereafter, the three sons, of whom the assessee is one, formed themselves into a firm. This firm was dissolved on 31st December, 1952. Till that date it was carrying on money-lending business. On dissolution, among the items of properties which the assessee, as one of the erstwhile partners, obtained were the house-property and certain shares. It is common ground that after the 1st January, 1953, the assessee did not carry on any money-lending business. He made no advances. Two outstandings were allotted to him and the only transaction in money-lending, if it can be so called, that the assessee engaged in, was to realise these outstandings. In the accounting year ending on the 31st December, 1956, relevant to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee sold the and the shares, realising a total of 16,517 and odd dollars. The value of these items as per the books of account being 10,015 and odd dollars, the Department sought to tax the difference of 6,500 and odd dollars. The assessee contended that it was a capital accretion and not a revenue receipt. This contention however failed to find favour with the Income-tax Officer, who held that in the assessment of an earlier year, the Tribunal had taken the view that what the assessee took over on the dissolution of the partnership formed part of the stock-in-trade of the defunct money-lending business. It was also considered that the interest receipts from the outstandings that were allotted to the assessee's share had been subjected to income-tax and that for this reason, the profits arising from the sale of these items of properties was also assessable. It was also considered that the interest receipts from the outstandings that were allotted to the assessee's share had been subjected to income-tax and that for this reason, the profits arising from the sale of these items of properties was also assessable. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while conceding that money-lending might not have been continued by the assessee, yet thought that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1954-55 had established these properties to be the stock-in-trade of the assessee, and that, therefore, the disposal of the stock-in-trade yielded a revenue receipt. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal somewhat inconsistently observed that it was not shown that there had been no money-lending advance after 1st January, 1953. It may be pointed out that the entire proceedings both of this year and of the prior year had resulted in establishing that the money-lending business had stopped on 31st December, 1952 and that no further advances had been made by the assessee. The fact that the assessee realised interest on the outstandings allotted to him was relied upon by the Tribunal in concluding that till all the outstandings were realised or written off, the money-lending business must be presumed to be carried on. For these reasons, the assessment of the sum in question was confirmed. It is in these circumstances that the question set out above stands referred to us. On the admitted facts of this case, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal reached a wholly unsupportable conclusion on the material that it had before it. That the joint family of P. AR. N. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar acquired these properties for cash is not denied. It may be that the cash was taken out of the money-lending receipts. On that point there is no evidence. Nor does it, in the circumstances of the case, materially affect the issue. After the partition, the properties belonging to the undivided family were allotted to its various members and undoubtedly in the hands of the divided members the properties were capital in nature. It is only on the basis of treatment of this property that it could possibly assume the character of stock-in-trade of the money-lending business. Admittedly, the firm that was constituted by the three divided brothers carried on money-lending business. It is only on the basis of treatment of this property that it could possibly assume the character of stock-in-trade of the money-lending business. Admittedly, the firm that was constituted by the three divided brothers carried on money-lending business. We shall assume without deciding that the properties in question were treated as the stock-in-trade of the business of the firm. Except for the fact that these items were entered as capital in the books of the firm, there is not much material to indicate that these properties were in fact treated as the stock-in-trade of the business. The stock-in-trade of a money-lending business is cash and while it maybe that properties acquired in lieu of outstandings may partake of the nature of stock-in-trade, the position with regard to properties put in as capital may well stand on a different footing. We need not further pursue this question. The fact remains that when this firm was dissolved on 31st December, 1952 these items of properties, which were entered in the books of account as capital, were allotted to this assessee. The dissolution also resulted in the allotment of two outstandings to the assessee. The question however is that when it is not in dispute that on and after 1st January, 1953, the assessee did not make any further advances and definitely put an end to the money-lending business in fact, in his individual capacity he did not have any money-lending business at all what the nature of these properties is in his hands e The fact that the assessee brought into assessment the interest that he realised on the outstandings that had been allotted to him can have no significance in so far as the nature of the properties is concerned. Even assuming that these properties had formed the stock-in-trade of the earlier money-lending business, it seems to us that no such character can be attributed to them after the dissolution, more particularly when the assessee did not carry on any money-lending business. The sale of the properties in 1956 must therefore be regarded as the sale of properties which did not form the stock-in-trade of any money-lending business. The position might well have been different if there was any irrefutable evidence to establish that even in the hands of the firm these properties were stock-in-trade. There is no such evidence to which our attention has been drawn. The position might well have been different if there was any irrefutable evidence to establish that even in the hands of the firm these properties were stock-in-trade. There is no such evidence to which our attention has been drawn. It seems to us accordingly that these items of properties formed capital in the hands of the assessee and their disposal in 1956, four years after the dissolution of the partnership, cannot in any view of the case be regarded as representing a transaction which yielded a revenue profit. The question is answered in favour of the assessee. He will be entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. V.S.-----Answered in favour of the assessee.