Judgment :- ISMAIL J. The Tribunal, Madras Bench, under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the CED, Madras, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 50% of the value of the two house properties at Somasundaram Colony and at Ellis Road, Madurai, should not be included in the dutiable estate of the deceased ?" * One Dr. T. R. Muthurangam died on October 29, 1966. His wife is Mrs. Girija Bai. The house properties referred to in the question admittedly stood in the name of Mrs. Girja Bai. Even before the death of Dr. Muthurangam, on October 24, 1966, one of the properties was settled by Mrs. Girija Bai in favour of her son, T. M. Singaravelu. It is pertinent to point out that this settlement deed was executed only by Mrs. Girija Bai. After the death of Dr. Muthurangam, on November 15, 1966, Mrs. Girija Bai settled the other property in favour of her daughter, T. M. Shyamala. In both the settlement deeds there is a reference to the site having been purchased in the name of Mrs. Girija Bai out of the joint earnings of the husband and the wife and the construction having been put upon them subsequently. The Asst. CED brought 50% of the value of these two properties in the dutiable estate of Dr. Muthurangam on the ground that he owned 50% beneficial interest in the said two items of properties. However, on appeal preferred by the accountable person, the Appellate CED deleted the 50% value of these properties holding that the entire properties belonged to Mrs. Girija Bai. The Asst. CED preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the deceased had no beneficial interest whatever in the two properties in question and that, therefore, the order of the Appellate Controller was correct. Girija Bai. The Asst. CED preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the deceased had no beneficial interest whatever in the two properties in question and that, therefore, the order of the Appellate Controller was correct. It is the correctness of this conclusion of the Tribunal confirming the conclusion of the Appellate Controller that is challenged before this court in the form of the question referred to above.The principal fact relied on in support of the contention of the revenue is that it is admitted that both the properties were acquired out of the joint earnings of the husband and the wife and that for the assessment year 1966-67 Mrs. Girija Bai had written to the I.T. department that, since 50% of the contribution came out of her husband's earnings, only 50% of the properties must be treated as belonging to her as an individual. These are the two circumstances on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the revenue. The Tribunal has, in our opinion, very rightly pointed out that these circumstances will have no value whatever. Even if a part the earnings of the husband had gone into the acquisition of the properties in question, the real question for consideration is whether the husband retained any beneficial interest in the properties or though he had contributed his own earnings, his intention was to make the wife alone the beneficial owner of the entire property. In this particular case, the admitted fact is that the income from the two properties in question was assessed only in the hands of Mrs. Girija Bai and even a portion of the same was not assessed in the hands of T.R. Mutthurangam. That was the position even after the letter written by Mrs. Girija Bai, referred to already, position was received by the I. T. department. The Tribunal also has recorded a finding that there was no material to show that the income from the properties had been credited in the joint bank account maintained by the deceased and Mrs. Girija Bai and that the deceased enjoyed the unsufruct of the income from the properties. The third aspect to be taken note of is that even during the lifetime of Dr. Muthurangam, when Mrs. Girija Bai settled one of the properties in favour of her son on October 24, 1966, Dr. Girija Bai and that the deceased enjoyed the unsufruct of the income from the properties. The third aspect to be taken note of is that even during the lifetime of Dr. Muthurangam, when Mrs. Girija Bai settled one of the properties in favour of her son on October 24, 1966, Dr. Muthurangam did not join in the execution of the settlement deed. If Dr. Muthurangam had any beneficial interest in the properties, he should have joined in the execution of the settlement deed. But the settlement deed was executed by Mrs. Girija Bai alone on the basis that the said property belonged exclusively to her. In view of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was material before the Tribunal to conclude that Dr. Muthurangam had no beneficial interest whatever in the properties in question and that, therefore, they did not pass, on the death of Dr. Muthurangam, with the result their value was not liable to be included in the dutiable estate of Dr. Muthurangam.Consequently, we answer the question reeferred to this court in the affirmative and against the department. The accountable person is entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only).