K.S.Hegde, J. (1) THE question of law referred to the High court for its opinion undersection 60(1) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) was : "WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case the status of tenancy-in-common could be assigned to tne assessee ignoring the mandate of the legislature embodied in S. 29 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act that there should be partition in the family in definite portions." (2) THE High court agreeing with the conclusions reached by the tribunal answered that question in favour of the assessee. In our opinion on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the question submitted under S. 60(1) was a misconceived one and therefore the High court should have reframed that question before answering the same. (3) THE accounting periods with which We are concerned in this appeal are November 1, 195 6/09/1957, September 17, 195 7/03/1/03/1958 and the assessment year 1960-61. (4) THE facts found by the tribunal are that till 29/08/1956, the respondent was theKarta of his family. On 29/08/1956 the members of the respondents family entered into a deed, under which the undivided status of the family was disrupted and the family properties were agreed to be divided into 22 shares. But actual partition by metes and bounds was not effected under that document. That work was entrusted to two arbitrators. After the arbitrators passed their award, a regular partition deed was entered into. The tribunal has accepted the truth and validity of the karar as well as the partition deed dividing the family properties by metes and bounds. It has come to the conclusion that the respondents family was divided. Therefore the question arises whether any portion of the income of the quandum family in one or the other of the relevant assessment years is liable to be brought to tax as the income of the H. U. F. (5) THE High court has come to the conclusion that no portion of the income received in the relevant accounting years could be assessed as the income of the H. U. F. We have earlier set out the assessement years with which we are concerned. As seen earlier, the karar providing for the division of the family properties was entered into on 29/08/1956. As seen earlier, the karar providing for the division of the family properties was entered into on 29/08/1956. (6) FROM the judgment of the High court we find that the partition deed dividing the family properties by metes and bounds was entered into on 15/09/1956. In view of these, facts, no portion of the income sought to be taxed can be considered as having been earned by the H. U. F. in the relevant accounting years. Even the very first accouinting year commenced after the family properties were divided by metes and bounds. In this view it is not necessary to go in the meaning of the expression a Hindu undivided family "which is being assessed for the first time as a.Hindu undivided family" in S. 29 (1). As observed by us in our judgment in Civil Nos. 62 and 63 of 1969, which we have just now delivered that expression is unintelligible and it is doubtful whether the legislative intention has been expressed with sufficient clarity in order to make it enforceable. (7) THE only contention advanced in this appeal on behalf of the appellant was that as the Agricultural Income Tax Officer had not passed any order under S. 29 of the Act, recording that the family in question is a divided family, that family must be deemed to be an undivided family. This contention has no basis. As seen earlier, the Appellate tribunal had recorded a decision that the respondent family was divided even before the commencement of the accounting year 1956-57. The Appellate tribunal lias all the powers of the assessing authority. Hence its order should be considered as an order under S. 29. (8) FOR the reasons mentioned above we dismiss this appeal. The respondent is not represented in this court. At our request Mr. S. T, Desai, assisted us as arnicus curiae. -We are thankful to him for the assistance given to us. There will be no order as to costs in appeal.