Judgment :- 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under S.66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment years concerned are 1958-59 & 1959-60; and the accounting periods, the Malayalam years 1132 & 1133 respectively. The questions referred are: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 16,066 to the assessee's income for 1958-59 assessment is valid in law? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 14,589 to the assessee's income for 1959-60 assessment is valid in law? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the salary of Rs. 1,800/- paid to the kartha as an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1958 -59? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the salary of Rs. 2,700/- paid to the kartha as an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1959-60? Question Nos.1 and 2: 2. We have heard counsel at length but are not satisfied that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in the conclusion it reached. The reason for the conclusion is the increase in the volume of the retail business which, it is not disputed, will produce a larger volume of profit than the wholesale business of the assessee. The figures given in the order of the Appellate Tribunal are not correct; but that in this case is indicative only of a lack of care, and not a lack of judgment. Even on the basis of the correct figures to which our attention has been drawn, the increases in the volume of the retail business will justify the addition of Rs. 16,066/- in respect of the assessment year 1958-59 and the addition of Rs. 14,589/- in respect of the assessment year 1959-60. 3. The proportion of the retail sales to the total sales, according to the correct figures and as admitted at the Bar, was only just over seven per cent in 1131 M.E. It rose to over thirteen per cent in 1132 M. E. and to over seventeen per cent in 1133 M.E. 4. 3. The proportion of the retail sales to the total sales, according to the correct figures and as admitted at the Bar, was only just over seven per cent in 1131 M.E. It rose to over thirteen per cent in 1132 M. E. and to over seventeen per cent in 1133 M.E. 4. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal and applying it to the correct figures answer these two questions in the affirmative and against theassessee. Question Nos. 3 and 4: 5. The decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai (-1962-461.T.R. 293) is against the contention of the assessee. In that case the Allahabad High Court said: "Apart from any special agreement the kartha of a joint Hindu family is bound by reason of his being the karta to manage the business of the family without being entitled to any remuneration. A Hindu undivided family cannot, therefore, in the absence of a special agreement to pay remuneration to the karta for managing the business of the family, claim as a deduction amounts paid as remuneration to the karta for managing the joint family business." (Head-note) 6. We are in agreement with the decision. And it follows that these two questions also have to be answered against the assessee. The reference is answered as above, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-section (5) of S.66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.